D&D General Your Core Classes if The Core 4 Aren't Allowed

[doctorbadwolf]

Imagine!

You are asked to make a 3pp DnD 5e competitor. The ask includes some odd restrictions.

1. No Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard.

2. No Plain Human, or Tolkein style elves, dwarves, orcs, or halflings.

3. Replacements cannot be the same thing with a different name, but it can be designed to fill the same role or niche.

What do?

(I will share mine later)

 

[Scribe]

Is Barbarian, Bard, Paladin, Warlock/Sorcerer valid?

 

[Marc17]

Hrrm...

1) You pick your culture, country, guild, or whatever. Let's go with the four elements just for an example. Each one has their own specializations and flavor that determines powers. At 3rd level, you choose your focus in the typical combat, sneaky, social, or magic categories.

2) Anthropomorphic animals for everybody. Which animal determine their special feature.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

FOr species, Dannan would replace elves (more Legend, creepy little half feral bastards with sharp teeth and inhuman beauty), orcs replaced by trolls (norse inspired), humans replaced with Fir Bolg (big people), and doragar (little quick smart folk based on critters like brownies and dwarves), and then bring in shadar-kai style dark fey, keep dragonborn but maybe a bit less humanoid, tieflings, and 4e style genasi and hengeyokai.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Is Barbarian, Bard, Paladin, Warlock/Sorcerer valid?

Absolutely. i love the vibe from that.

Hrrm...

1) You pick your culture, country, guild, or whatever. Let's go with the four elements just for an example. Each one has their own specializations and flavor that determines powers. At 3rd level, you choose your focus in the typical combat, sneaky, social, or magic categories.

So "class" is chosen later. I really like that.

2) Anthropomorphic animals for everybody. Which animal determine their special feature.

Oh i like that. Redwall style smaller critters or wider range?

 

[Marc17]

Oh i like that. Redwall style smaller critters or wider range?

Here is the crux. It's the setting, what players can play, what the conflicts and situations they are expecting to be presented with that will draw them away from D&D to any competitor. The decisions if you are doing Redwall style woodland game, Ryutamma-like game with Richard Scary characters, or a chivalric fursona heroic fantasy is what will take the real thought and work.

 

[humble minion]

The hardest bit of the spec is to make a 5e D&D competitor with those restrictions. I can think of a dozen concepts for RPGs, even some for fantasy RPGs that can fit the requirement, but expecting to compete with D&D in the 'vaguely-generic heroic fantasy' genre without humans is a tougher ask.

 

[Scribe]

Absolutely. i love the vibe from that.

Cool, I'd probably make some changes.to each, no full casters, but I think it would be a cool core 4. Warlock over Sorc as the more Caster leaning.

 

[Lanefan]

Knight, Assassin, Necromancer would be three; there isn't a decent replacement for Cleric that isn't just Cleric by another name (and to me Druid is just a specific type of Cleric using another name).

You list four species I would never replace (orcs can go as playables). It's all the other ones that need to go.

 

[Chaltab]

1. Core classes: Artificer, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Paladin, Psion, Ranger, Shaman, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord
2. Core species: Aasimar, Beastfolk, Bugbear, Dragonborn, Goblin, Gnome, Hobgoblin, Kobold, Tiefling, Reborn

Lore: The traditional four classes and the Tolkien races were all but exterminated by too-clever-by-half unsealed evil, believing that those groups being traditionally the source of most heroes would make it unstoppable. The other species and classes rose up and banished the evil, but they couldn't undo its destruction. Some attempts have been made to reanimate the lost species, resulting in Reborn, Frankenstein monster-esque sapient golems. They may look like like undead elves, humans, orcs, etc... but mentally and metaphysically they are clearly not.