D&D 5E Stripping 5e to its core

[Tiberiusthedm]

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.


A good question...


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


I see your point...


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.

Roll the SRD subclass into the class.
They may not always know about monks, that's a recent example, but my point is that in the 5e era D&D is fairly mainstream and known even by people who haven't played ttrpgs. BG3 has been how 3 of my most recent players know the game.
A primer on 5e should prime people for playing 5e not just any d&d game. Fighter Magic user and Thief are the B/X method I know, but that's not what new players are coming for, they aren't looking for a half B/X half 5e.

I split them into 4 groups, and each of those "classes" gave some abilities to the 3 archetypes as well.

But, you don't necessarily have to make them so literally. I think having a nod to them works, like you can have a fighter who gets to do more damage with unarmed attacks, and gets an extra off-hand attack and call it a monk. It doesn't need all monk features.

In mine I tried including thier main subclass abilities and thier class abilities. But my design goal is I don't want dead levels, I can understand if dead levels is more permissable in this simplified version because simplicity is the primary goal.

And my gf is on the side of keeping ability scores and modifiers (I think scores are superfluous, but she's newer at D&D so her perspective can help)

 

[ezo]

Roll the SRD subclass into the class.

I think this is the direction you would have to go, honestly. I wouldn't even identify it as a subclass, just literally bake the subclass features into the class table.

For example Fighter 3 would have Improved Critical, not Champion feature or Martial Archetype feature.

Then, later on, the player will learn they got Improved Critical as part of the Champion subclass.

 

[GMMichael]

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.

What feels like D&D? PCs and a GM. Rolling dice to add uncertainty. Simulated-reality play. Detailed rules for combat, including being turn-based. Your character filling a niche, and a grid-square. Matt Mercer's hair. Having a rule book nearby for reference. Creepy black-and-white art (in the olden days). Monsters. A table top. And dungeons with plentiful light sources (or characters with darkvision).

Of course, this flies in the face of WotC's current vision for D&D.

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.

That's funny, because it contradicts what you said upthread to me.

 

[ezo]

That's funny, because it contradicts what you said upthread to me.

I said "not exactly". How I play is determined by what I have to work with, and you threw out 90% of the things D&D has been based on for years. I can't play in the same way without at least some of those things.

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.

Six ability scores, a handful of races, another handful of classes, hit points, AC, saves, spells, skills, some equipment options, and a resolution system to tie it all together.

The mechanics are the resolution system. I don't care if I use tables, or a unified d20 system or some mixture or hodgepodge as long as it interacts with a way I would. Having a single "turn" or multiple action economy, bonus actions, reactions, etc. doesn't matter either.

This thread is supposed to be about stripping 5E to its core, and as you said:

By now, I've probably broken 5e pretty well

Obviously you have Modos but is (at least on a surface read) much more complicated than a stripped down 5e D&D. It might certainly feel like a fantasy RPG system, but not "D&D". I've never actually played it, but I read through it a while back when I was looking for 5E alternatives.

 

[Faolyn]

What feels like D&D? PCs and a GM. Rolling dice to add uncertainty. Simulated-reality play. Detailed rules for combat, including being turn-based. Your character filling a niche, and a grid-square. Matt Mercer's hair. Having a rule book nearby for reference. Creepy black-and-white art (in the olden days). Monsters. A table top. And dungeons with plentiful light sources (or characters with darkvision).

Of course, this flies in the face of WotC's current vision for D&D.

Well, I wouldn't know about all of that (my table normally does theater of the mind, and I don't have a mental image of Mercer's hair). But that sounds like nearly every game out there, depending on your definition of "monster" and "dungeon." I mean, that's sounds pretty similar to my Monster of the Week Game, and that's definitely not D&D. The books even have black-and-white art, and we've established a consistent turn order. We just play online and use theater of the mind because we can't get together in person.

 

[Remathilis]

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

Do not underestimate how much D&Ds classes have influenced video games and vice versa. Monk (the unarmed/unarmored warrior archetype) has been in hundreds of video game RPGs from the first Final Fantasy onwards. People know what paladins, bards and druids are from Elder Scrolls and Warcraft. White mage/priests/healers are ubiquitous. Even games not strictly in the fantasy genre still build around the tank/healer/DPS trinity and often have characters that mimic D&D archetypes.

If the goal is younger players who would have familiarity with video games but not D&D, no archetype is off the table.

 

[Tiberiusthedm]

Do not underestimate how much D&Ds classes have influenced video games and vice versa. Monk (the unarmed/unarmored warrior archetype) has been in hundreds of video game RPGs from the first Final Fantasy onwards. People know what paladins, bards and druids are from Elder Scrolls and Warcraft. White mage/priests/healers are ubiquitous. Even games not strictly in the fantasy genre still build around the tank/healer/DPS trinity and often have characters that mimic D&D archetypes.

If the goal is younger players who would have familiarity with video games but not D&D, no archetype is off the table.

Very good points.

The player experience definitely has to be trimmed carefully.

Six ability scores, a handful of races, another handful of classes, hit points, AC, saves, spells, skills, some equipment options, and a resolution system to tie it all together.

Great points.
Do skills have to be prelisted like the character sheet?
I've considered including specific skills for level 4+ Experts (in my case, Rogue, Monk, and Ranger) but making the rest of the skills more optional. Players can choose to add proficiency to skills after 4, and add the skills they want to thier sheet.
Checks would generally be done based on abilities, and allow players to somewhat play with which abilities tie to which checks.
This is closer to the Module approach that was brought up earlier, but I'm not sure if that's the simplified direction people were going.

This thread is supposed to be about stripping 5E to its core...

yes, this is what I'm most curious to see, how do we make 5e specifically simple, not just D&D.

Action. Bonus actions. Reactions. Free Actions.

The classes are all built to use all of these, but the number of action types is a lot to remember for new players I've been told. B&B cuts Bonus actions, but I think even then there were exceptions. How do simplify the action side of things, is that even possible?

 

[Eubani]

If you stripped it down to bare basics we would be back to Wizards and caddies.

 

[GMMichael]

But that sounds like nearly every game out there, depending on your definition of "monster" and "dungeon." I mean, that's sounds pretty similar to my Monster of the Week Game, and that's definitely not D&D.

The reason it sounds like nearly every game out there is that nearly every game out there tries to be like D&D.

Out of curiosity, how is Monster of the Week definitely not D&D?

 

[ezo]

@Sacrosanct

Just so we are all clear, what direction are you looking to move this idea?

From the OP:

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? By compatible, I mean about as close as a B/X character was with AD&D--some big differences, but you could still play them side by side and have it work.

But later on you talk more about a primer idea:

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.

As I see it (correct me if I am wrong, please) is:
1. Nothing new. You can take things away, simplify, or limit only. You will add, make complex, and build things up to 5E, but in the end it should be 5E or just 5E-like?? If only 5E-like, you have B&B which does this IMO.
2. Make default choices for the players which later on they would make in 5E. Such as using the default subclasses for the class tables. This could further include background choices, skills, equipment packages, even spell options.
3. Removing other player options like rolling for HP, maybe even rolling for abilities (scores or modifiers) and just using a starting array. Even the starting array could have a few pre-determined options for a class depending on the build goal.
4. Simpler rule options like side initiative. Consider ability proficiency variant instead of skills as an option.