D&D General Vote Up a 5e-alike: The Current State Of Things (As of 10/27)

[Faolyn]

Here's what we have right now:

• Spells require a roll to activate, with possibly disastrous results if miscast.
• The majority of spells are non-damaging; the only damaging spells are going to be cantrips and iconic spells.
• People wanted to both have a limit on the number of caster classes but also allow for all caster classes. I'd go for wizard-cleric-warlock-druid myself.
• Spells are limited to 5th level.
• Rangers aren't casters.
• Hit points are reduced and healing takes longer and/or is more difficult.
• The term used instead of race is ancestry.
• The "core" ancestries are human, dwarf, elf, halfling, orc, and goblin.
• There are no "sub-races." Elf is elf. But each ancestry will have one trait they can choose--an ancestry gift, if you will.
• There will be cultures in addition to backgrounds
• Starting ASI is partially based on ancestry, partially floating.
• Stat mods are as per 5e: 12-13 = +1, 14-15 = +2, etc.
• Three saving throws: Fortitude, Reflexes, Willpower (can be renamed)
• Standard core skills
• Tool, game, musical instrument, etc., are separate from skills
• Intelligence grants bonus skills, languages, etc.
• Wisdom (Perception) affects Initiative
• Strength, not Dexterity, affects the damage of all weapons.
• Each class gets Expertise (doubling PB) in one or more skills that are important to that class
• ROLL UNDER--so far, the biggest change
• Feats at 1st level
• Feat schedule depends on your class rather than at a set level like in 5e
• Feats have class/level prereqs
• No half-feats.
• 20 levels

Thoughts From The Comments (and Runners-Up)

• Include a Wounds system based either on Con or Con modifier which is difficult to heal, while hit points remain fairly easy to heal.
• Include lizardfolk as an ancestry.
• Have "racial templates" like half-human and fey-touched. This could possibly be one of the above-mentioned ancestry gifts.
• Make spells more versatile.
• Starting ASIs are partially ancestry, partially class, partially floating.
• Include stat caps for different ancestries.
• Use attribute/class/background/culture skills instead the core skills. These would be Life Skills, separate from the core skills.
• Give each stat a "passive ability" that doesn't need to be rolled: passive athletics, passive sneakiness, passive endurance, passive perception, passive insight, passive charming-ness.
• Front-load class abilities. After a while (10th level?), you stop getting class abilities and just get feats.
• Make level progression open-ended; XP is easy to calculate to allow for infinite level.
• Class abilities involve choices, so two characters of the same class and level won't necessarily look alike.
• Add Strength to your AC when using a shield.
• XP/level is something like 1k per level (and you earn less XP for lower-level challenges) or 1k x your level. Easy to calculate either way.
• Slight emphasis on non-supernatural monsters.

Food For Thought
Between feats and choices to be made at each level, are archetypes really necessary? Anything an archetype can do can be replaced by feat chains and choices, and not having them could simplify chargen. An archetype could simply be "to play a brawler type, take this class and these feats" rather than create a Brawler archetype.

So unless there are any other ideas, I will work on a poll for Fighters. I won't get that up until tomorrow, though--tonight is game night, and we just finished off our first combat in several sessions. I love being a Swashbuckler; I get so much sneak attack.

 

[Scribe]

The "core" ancestries are human, dwarf, elf, halfling, orc, and goblin.

When did this happen, thats my core!

 

[Lanefan]

Food For Thought
Between feats and choices to be made at each level, are archetypes really necessary? Anything an archetype can do can be replaced by feat chains and choices, and not having them could simplify chargen. An archetype could simply be "to play a brawler type, take this class and these feats" rather than create a Brawler archetype.

I think archetypes - or very clear examples of such - are necessary, if only for the benefit of new and-or very casual players (of which there are many).

I also think mechanically-favoured archetypes are necessary in order to facilitate playing against type. Some people enjoy playing the underdog or the radical - the Dwarf who loves nature, the Elf who runs a clearcutting forestry company in her spare time, the Mage who starts off with Int 12 and Wis 6 - but if everyone's equal then there can't be a mechanical underdog...or an overdog, for that matter.

Oh, and one other very basic aspect to consider that I don't think has been hit yet in these polls: method(s) of initial character generation. Random? Point buy? Fixed array? Other? A mix? If random, how deep does the random element run - e.g. random core stats but pick background, fixed core stats but random background, or...? Etc.

So unless there are any other ideas, I will work on a poll for Fighters. I won't get that up until tomorrow, though--tonight is game night, and we just finished off our first combat in several sessions. I love being a Swashbuckler; I get so much sneak attack.

Nice!

 

[dave2008]

• Feat schedule depends on your class rather than at a set level like in 5e

Just wanted to clarify that is true in 5e too (if only a little).

Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard:
4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 19th

Fighter:
4th, 6th, 8th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 19th

Rogue:
4th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 16th, 19th

 

[Faolyn]

Just wanted to clarify that is true in 5e too (if only a little).

Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard:
4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, 19th

Fighter:
4th, 6th, 8th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 19th

Rogue:
4th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 16th, 19th

OK, yeah, but that's the nonmagical classes getting a bit of extra support. They otherwise have the same schedule.

 

[Faolyn]

I've put up the poll for fighters!

 

[CreamCloud0]

This seems to be the most appropriate place for this question, it’s been voted that this alike should be lower-magic than 5e but has there been any considerations on the base technology levels, or is it just assuming the typical faux-medieval setting aesthetic?

 

[CreamCloud0]

two more concepts for stuff to potentially vote on or just what are people's thoughts on them i guess?
1) different properties for gear made out of different materials, silver and cold iron are the most iconic examples as weapons, but what could a silver shield or cold iron armour do for you, or a stone or ironwood weapon.
2) spell lists that could be a separate choice from the casting class who uses them? like the idea of 1DnD arcane/primal/divine spell lists existing separately from wizard-warlock/druid/cleric, you could build a druid that uses the arcane spell list, or a warlock that uses the divine spell list, because the classes bring more to the table than just their respective spell lists.
even if this wasn't implemented for wizard/druid/cleric it might be an interesting quirk for the warlock or lesser casters who get spellcasting through specific archetypes (does an eldritch knight specifically need to be arcane for instance)

 

[Faolyn]

This seems to be the most appropriate place for this question, it’s been voted that this alike should be lower-magic than 5e but has there been any considerations on the base technology levels, or is it just assuming the typical faux-medieval setting aesthetic?

two more concepts for stuff to potentially vote on or just what are people's thoughts on them i guess?
1) different properties for gear made out of different materials, silver and cold iron are the most iconic examples as weapons, but what could a silver shield or cold iron armour do for you, or a stone or ironwood weapon.
2) spell lists that could be a separate choice from the casting class who uses them? like the idea of 1DnD arcane/primal/divine spell lists existing separately from wizard-warlock/druid/cleric, you could build a druid that uses the arcane spell list, or a warlock that uses the divine spell list, because the classes bring more to the table than just their respective spell lists.
even if this wasn't implemented for wizard/druid/cleric it might be an interesting quirk for the warlock or lesser casters who get spellcasting through specific archetypes (does an eldritch knight specifically need to be arcane for instance)

Eep, sorry for the late reply. I haven't been getting notifications much lately!

I'm assuming faux-medieval, possibly more iron age. But that's more an equipment thing. I do like the idea of gear made with different materials, especially with it comes with monsters that are vulnerable to specific types of material.

I also like the idea of separate spell lists. It makes it easier to produce half-casters. A half-caster fighter could be a sword-mage, a green knight, or a paladin all depending on what spell list they have.

 

[Lanefan]

I also like the idea of separate spell lists. It makes it easier to produce half-casters. A half-caster fighter could be a sword-mage, a green knight, or a paladin all depending on what spell list they have.

Do you mean separate lists of the same spells? As in, some classes get Dispel Magic and some don't but the spell works exactly the same for each of those classes that get it?

Or do you mean spells bespoke to and-or tweaked for each class? As in, only Necromancers get Animate Dead as a 2nd-level spell where everyone else has to wait until at least 3rd; and-or the Cleric version of Dispel Magic works differently than does tha Wizard version; and-or Bless Blade is a hypothetical new spell bespoke to Sword-mages, and-or ???