D&D 5E Stripping 5e to its core

[ezo]

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

FWIW, I am

As @Sacrosanct says, I think being concerned with compatability IS a major factor.

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.

Okay, I think I covered most of these. And threw most out.

This no longer would look like D&D to me.

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?

Nope.

Let's look at the demos:

Still doesn't.

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.

I don't see how you roll the dice impacting this. The +2 ASI results in a +1 modifier--always. The +1 ASI results in a +1 modifer...half the time.

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.

To me remembering and having to constantly remind my players "Hey, you have disadvantage because you are in dim light" is annoying.

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).

Here's the thing: if you want a true 5E primer, you can't add anything new. You could keep a couple super simple subclasses maybe, but that is it. If you make something new, and then it isn't in 5E, then you sort of get annoyed. This was the issue I had with B&B. It added cool features, but no longer served as a primer for 5E because if you played B&B and then went to 5E, those features were no longer there.

I get the desire to do this, but it breaks way from the concept @Sacrosanct is trying to adhere to.

Weird. I don't think I've ever run into that problem.

Oi... it happens with about 35-40% of the new players I get.

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.

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.

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).

Yep, all good stuff which could work if the goal isn't to just strip 5E down to the core.

I see this concept like demolishing a house. You tear it down to the studs. The studs show you the basic layout, where the plumbing goes, what rooms are bedrooms (due to closets), etc.

Once you start adding to it, however, you have to be careful you don't change how the house "feels" compared to how it was before the demo. Did the living and dining rooms change places? Did that bathroom become an en suite to one of the bedrooms? And so on.

Including a few classes (as written sans subclasses) and races, etc. is like putting the walls back up. Keeping d20 is keeping electricity. Etc.

What we should be doing when we're done is asking ourselves what is missing? Will that missing component make it not feel like D&D?

 

[Faolyn]

I don't see how you roll the dice impacting this. The +2 ASI results in a +1 modifier--always. The +1 ASI results in a +1 modifer...half the time.

Basically, if you roll 4d6-l, you tend to get higher results than if you roll 3d6. A +1 to a score when most are already really high may feel like too much, while a +1 to a more average score is a nice bonus.

But actually, I was talking about if this game does away with the scores, but keeps the modifiers. Like, instead of having a Strength of 16 (+3), you have a Strength of +3. As you say, a +1 to an ASI of 16 turns it into a 17 (+3), but would make a score of +3 into a +4.

What we should be doing when we're done is asking ourselves what is missing? Will that missing component make it not feel like D&D?

I guess the real question is, what makes D&D feel like D&D in the first place?

This is an honest question. The only other system I've ever played medieval fantasy in has been GURPS. While the system is vastly different from the 2e, 3e, and 5e D&D games I've played, my personal experience is generally the same, in the sense that I roleplay the same amount no matter the system. Mind, I played a cleric in one game and a bard in the other--the latter using Dungeon Fantasy--so not playing primarily combat characters might have skewed my experience.

IOW, I haven't played OSR games or other medieval fantasy non-D&D games. (Yet--I keep trying to get my group to try out new systems.)

But others have said that other games feel, or don't feel, a lot like D&D and I'd like to know what does it for them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

I may borrow what I did with GEAS in that regard:

 

[Tiberiusthedm]

As @Sacrosanct says, I think being concerned with compatability IS a major factor.


This no longer would look like D&D to me.


Nope.


Still doesn't.


I don't see how you roll the dice impacting this. The +2 ASI results in a +1 modifier--always. The +1 ASI results in a +1 modifer...half the time.


To me remembering and having to constantly remind my players "Hey, you have disadvantage because you are in dim light" is annoying.


Here's the thing: if you want a true 5E primer, you can't add anything new. You could keep a couple super simple subclasses maybe, but that is it. If you make something new, and then it isn't in 5E, then you sort of get annoyed. This was the issue I had with B&B. It added cool features, but no longer served as a primer for 5E because if you played B&B and then went to 5E, those features were no longer there.

I get the desire to do this, but it breaks way from the concept @Sacrosanct is trying to adhere to.


Oi... it happens with about 35-40% of the new players I get.


Yep, all good stuff which could work if the goal isn't to just strip 5E down to the core.

I see this concept like demolishing a house. You tear it down to the studs. The studs show you the basic layout, where the plumbing goes, what rooms are bedrooms (due to closets), etc.

Once you start adding to it, however, you have to be careful you don't change how the house "feels" compared to how it was before the demo. Did the living and dining rooms change places? Did that bathroom become an en suite to one of the bedrooms? And so on.

Including a few classes (as written sans subclasses) and races, etc. is like putting the walls back up. Keeping d20 is keeping electricity. Etc.

What we should be doing when we're done is asking ourselves what is missing? Will that missing component make it not feel like D&D?

I think a stripped down 5e should include a nod to or direct class of all 12 classes. 5 torches deep almost managed it, though there are different ways to organize them, but 5e is the 12 classes for players. New players especially are coming from BG3, but even outside of that influence the feel of 5e is the 12 classes doing what the uniquely do. If I can't have an unarmed monk, it's not 5e, if my buddy can't eldritch blast with his warlock it's not 5e.

I can understand simplifying it to 4 archetypes or 2 if that's what simplifies it, but definitively for players, there are 12 classes messing with that is just recreating 5e as an OSR.

I look at it from the stance of character creation, what questions do I ask new players, and at what point are they usually befuddled. 100% of the time it's subclasses. They can understand the 12 classes, though sometimes you do start by asking if they want to hit people, sneak around, or cast magic, then I'll get into classes.

I built my system off of 4 classes with 3 options each, and tried to make each class broadly compatible with it's 5e class/subclass from the SRD, but again for this, I do understand going for something simpler because the end goal is both simple and 5e.

B&B's weapons and armor is the best simplification I've seen BTW, it's so much easier for players to build equipment that way.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

Are you talking about the Cannon Fodder ability fighter's get?

 

[Tiberiusthedm]

Are you talking about the Cannon Fodder ability fighter's get?

View attachment 391063

100% fighter LOVE that feature, they feel so good being able to just take out weak enemies.

 

[ezo]

Basically, if you roll 4d6-l, you tend to get higher results than if you roll 3d6. A +1 to a score when most are already really high may feel like too much, while a +1 to a more average score is a nice bonus.

But actually, I was talking about if this game does away with the scores, but keeps the modifiers. Like, instead of having a Strength of 16 (+3), you have a Strength of +3. As you say, a +1 to an ASI of 16 turns it into a 17 (+3), but would make a score of +3 into a +4.

I see your point, but like you said it relies on whether the scores are kept or not.

If a primer goes from just ability modifiers to including scores in 5E, why does it? 5E has ability scores, so would removing them at the primer level and then adding them back in make things simpler or more difficult?

I guess the real question is, what makes D&D feel like D&D in the first place?

In the course of creating a true primer, the question can't be asked of someone who really has played... because the answer is different for everyone of course.

The trick is to create something that once played by a new player, they can relate the experience to someone who has played 5E and the experienced player will feel some level of similarity.

This is an honest question. The only other system I've ever played medieval fantasy in has been GURPS. While the system is vastly different from the 2e, 3e, and 5e D&D games I've played, my personal experience is generally the same, in the sense that I roleplay the same amount no matter the system. Mind, I played a cleric in one game and a bard in the other--the latter using Dungeon Fantasy--so not playing primarily combat characters might have skewed my experience.

IOW, I haven't played OSR games or other medieval fantasy non-D&D games. (Yet--I keep trying to get my group to try out new systems.)

But others have said that other games feel, or don't feel, a lot like D&D and I'd like to know what does it for them.

As I said upthread for myself:
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.

I come from D&D in the late 70s, so B/X and AD&D 1E. I don't need Sorcerers or Warlock to feel like D&D. In fact, it feels less like D&D with those classes added. Feats, tons of features, etc. all detract from what D&D is to me: a game of imagination.

I think a stripped down 5e should include a nod to or direct class of all 12 classes. 5 torches deep almost managed it, though there are different ways to organize them, but 5e is the 12 classes for players. New players especially are coming from BG3, but even outside of that influence the feel of 5e is the 12 classes doing what the uniquely do. If I can't have an unarmed monk, it's not 5e, if my buddy can't eldritch blast with his warlock it's not 5e.

I can understand simplifying it to 4 archetypes or 2 if that's what simplifies it, but definitively for players, there are 12 classes messing with that is just recreating 5e as an OSR.

I look at it from the stance of character creation, what questions do I ask new players, and at what point are they usually befuddled. 100% of the time it's subclasses. They can understand the 12 classes, though sometimes you do start by asking if they want to hit people, sneak around, or cast magic, then I'll get into classes.

I built my system off of 4 classes with 3 options each, and tried to make each class broadly compatible with it's 5e class/subclass from the SRD, but again for this, I do understand going for something simpler because the end goal is both simple and 5e.

B&B's weapons and armor is the best simplification I've seen BTW, it's so much easier for players to build equipment that way.

I love FTD for their structure and if I were designing a not 5E game I would go with it, but again stripping 5E to its core doesn't work with this as you're aware.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I see your point, but like you said it relies on whether the scores are kept or not.

If a primer goes from just ability modifiers to including scores in 5E, why does it? 5E has ability scores, so would removing them at the primer level and then adding them back in make things simpler or more difficult?

Ability scores are a tricky example. By removing the score and only going with modifiers in B&B, that was met with universal praise. Not just a primer, but a simpler rules set, and if ability scores don't really do anything outside of determining a modifier at every other value, why not just do the modifier? This is one of those examples that gets tricky on just how much do you remove while still preparing the player for the full game? You bring up a good question.

In this case, I think having the 6 abilities is "good enough" to give familiarity when moving to full 5e, if the player wants to move to full 5e. I say if, because I've heard a lot of people say they prefer B&B and not the full game. If it's a true primer, than it's a valid question to ask why scores aren't used. How much does that weigh against keeping it simple and less things to learn?

I come from D&D in the late 70s, so B/X and AD&D 1E. I don't need Sorcerers or Warlock to feel like D&D. In fact, it feels less like D&D with those classes added. Feats, tons of features, etc. all detract from what D&D is to me: a game of imagination.

I did as well, and I'm right there with you. For me, a game feels like D&D with just humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, fighters, thieves, magic users, and clerics. But I also understand that isn't true for a lot of players. Especially newer players.

 

[Tiberiusthedm]

I see your point, but like you said it relies on whether the scores are kept or not.

If a primer goes from just ability modifiers to including scores in 5E, why does it? 5E has ability scores, so would removing them at the primer level and then adding them back in make things simpler or more difficult?


In the course of creating a true primer, the question can't be asked of someone who really has played... because the answer is different for everyone of course.

The trick is to create something that once played by a new player, they can relate the experience to someone who has played 5E and the experienced player will feel some level of similarity.


As I said upthread for myself:
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.

I come from D&D in the late 70s, so B/X and AD&D 1E. I don't need Sorcerers or Warlock to feel like D&D. In fact, it feels less like D&D with those classes added. Feats, tons of features, etc. all detract from what D&D is to me: a game of imagination.


I love FTD for their structure and if I were designing a not 5E game I would go with it, but again stripping 5E to its core doesn't work with this as you're aware.

I'm only referencing the way they designed the class groupings. I'm not a huge fan of the classes as they implemented them.

I stand by, if you're making a 5e game that's simplified it needs the core 12 classes in some way. If you remove those 12 classes you definitely aren't going to make a 5e game, your making something vaguely similar, but Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue Sorcerer, Warlock and wizard are what make it 5e for players.

A new player that wants to play a monk isn't going to consider a game with only fighter and Magic user as an actual 5e on ramp. The on ramp is the 12 classes the full 5e game is the subclasses.

You can have Ability modifiers and add in ability scores later, if you need, but you mostly don't, and the difference between Ability scores and Ability modifiers confuses 80% of new players when they play in my experience. You don't need the scored anyway, they only have a vague effect on the rest of the game. You just allow an AMI of +1 and you're good. Imo

 

[ezo]

Not just a primer, but a simpler rules set

You can't have a primer without ability scores. You can have a simpler rules set, perhaps more of a primer than B&B ended up, but not a true primer IMO.

Now, that being said, I agree ability scores as they are no longer serve much purpose other than to determine ability modifiers. However, I would then go so far as to stop calling them ability modifiers and just abilities.

If it's a true primer, than it's a valid question to ask why scores aren't used. How much does that weigh against keeping it simple and less things to learn?

A good question...

But I also understand that isn't true for a lot of players. Especially newer players.

Because of exposure to things not D&D but D&D-based, certainly, true.

I stand by, if you're making a 5e game that's simplified it needs the core 12 classes in some way. If you remove those 12 classes you definitely aren't going to make a 5e game, your making something vaguely similar, but Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue Sorcerer, Warlock and wizard are what make it 5e for players.

I see your point...

A new player that wants to play a monk isn't going to consider a game with only fighter and Magic user as an actual 5e on ramp. The on ramp is the 12 classes the full 5e game is the subclasses.

How do they even know of the monk, though? If this is a primer, they shouldn't.

The problem with using the 12 classes but not subclasses is the classes as base aren't balanced. There is a reason why subclasses for some classes are stronger than others.

So, it creates a bit of problem. I don't know if it would work removing all the subclasses, or just keeping one each like the SRD.