Nowadays, races are for all practical purposes only skins. So WotC already fixed that for you.
I know, so sad.
Races are not just for practical purposes. They give you more combat abilities and can impact your characters culture, backstory, and where you grew up.
If I were king of 5e, there'd be no adjusting of ability scores other than through Feat, more of which would be available overall, more of which would adjust ability scores, and more of which would be earned at character creation and as you level. For example, if you wanted a higher Charisma score, you'd have new Feats such as "Attractive" or "Orator," but instead just adding to Charisma, the former would grant expertise in Seduction (a new skill check), whereas the latter would grant expertise in Persuasion. Each Race would have a few exclusive Feats it can take, as well as a few Feats it can't select from the general list.
I'd also have added three more classes to the game:
Summoner (with subclasses for specific types of summons such as elementals, fay, fiends, celestials, etc.)
Professional (a utility-focused class for the fantasy equivalent of jobs such as Archeologist, Journalist, Private Investigator, and Secret Agent)
Psionic (based on the scrapped Unearthed Arcana for Mystics)
>Summoner
Wildfire Druid, Battle Smith Artificer, Primeval Druid (in the Giant UA), Shepherd Druid, Conjurer Wizard (especially after the Tasha's summons), Clerics even if you think of Spirit Guardians and a few other staples as summons.
> Professional (Archeologist, Journalist, Private Investigator, and Secret Agent)
Literally Archeologist is a background, but if you insist, Lore Bard/Rogue for Archeologist, and the rest are just rogues. There's even a subclass for them! Inquisitive Rogue! oh and for secret agent, you can use Whispers Bard too (because the gnomish Trust in Eberron would definitely use Whispers bards)
>Psionic (based on the scrapped Unearthed Arcana for Mystics)
While I wouldn't do Mystic base *at all*, I do agree with this one at least.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Turn the current “vulnerability” into “critical vulnerability” and make a lesser version of it that affects more creatures.
You're not seriously suggesting WOTC put in so much effort that damage types genuinely matter, are you? That's crazy-talk. Next you'll point out that because all 5E instances of desiccation are necrotic, plants with fire vulnerability should instead have necrotic vulnerability. *Lunacy*.
Skill-less systems exist. Cortex, the system Fandom acquired and did nothing with a few years ago, instead invites players to set a descriptor about themselves such as "I'm a journalist", and then take a bonus on die rolls to do things the player and DM agree that The Journalist should be able to do.
It's effectively a variant proficiency system, and in fact this exact system is presented in the DMG as a variant option called Background Proficiency. Some players strongly prefer such options, considering them to promote more fluid play and to reinforce the importance of background in a game that often brushes background off as inconsequential. Even without this background proficiency system or a fixed skill list, players would be able to do things. Those things would simply boil down to ability checks with the most relevant ability modifier, which is also something some players prefer. The granularity of the 5e skill system, even as basic and rudimentary as it is, feels restrictive and artificial to some players. They say "I'm a sailor, I should be proficient in anything a sailor does. Why do I have to pick all these other things unrelated to sailing, and why can't I pick 'Sailing' as one of my skills?"
Personally, I prefer a more concrete system. The "argue about it" proficiency systems are murder on a game's pacing, since each and every skill check turns into a three minute horse-trading session mid-game as the player argues for getting their bonus and the DM tries to find the correct Aku Face setting to get them to understand that no, their background doesn't apply to every check they make. Background Proficiency also prevents any sort of training or growth - what you're good at when the game starts is the only thing you'll ever be good at, and that kinda defeats the purpose of the whole thing to me.
Nevertheless. The argument that fixed skills are essential to RPGs is provably false - 5e offers a few ways to do without them, and other systems are built without skills completely. Arguments that fixed skills are beneficial are another matter. I do believe that fixed capital-S Skills, with a name and a function, are of benefit to the game overall. 5e's list is too short and designed for settings that it doesn't really hold up to, but then again I'm a big fan of GURPS dedicating a three-digit page count to a list of skills GMs can assemble for their game so my opinion is perhaps a little canted compared to The 5e Aggregate Whole.
If I was king of 5e, I would make D&D a lot less complicated and then bring back Advanced D&D and make that a little more complex. That way people who want a simple system can have it, and people who want a more complex system can have it, and I would make them both compatible with all the adventures so that hat it would maximize the value of those adventures.
As a lot of the Jazz masters said: "First learn to play off the sheet, then learn to play what's not on the sheet, and then learn what not to play".
I think Yurei's suggestions suit an experienced group of players who know the game well. I worry that they increase the complexity challenge for beginners.
They say "I'm a sailor, I should be proficient in anything a sailor does. Why do I have to pick all these other things unrelated to sailing, and why can't I pick 'Sailing' as one of my skills?"
Then you take the Sailor background, and get proficiency with Vehicles (Water). Easy peasy.
They say "I'm a sailor, I should be proficient in anything a sailor does. Why do I have to pick all these other things unrelated to sailing, and why can't I pick 'Sailing' as one of my skills?"
Then you take the Sailor background, and get proficiency with Vehicles (Water). Easy peasy.
They say "I'm a sailor, I should be proficient in anything a sailor does. Why do I have to pick all these other things unrelated to sailing, and why can't I pick 'Sailing' as one of my skills?"
Then you take the Sailor background, and get proficiency with Vehicles (Water). Easy peasy.
Does proficiency with water vehicles give you proficiency for tying knots? How about climbing? Would you allow water vehicle proficiency to give bonuses to skill checks not near a boat? Etc.
They say "I'm a sailor, I should be proficient in anything a sailor does. Why do I have to pick all these other things unrelated to sailing, and why can't I pick 'Sailing' as one of my skills?"
Then you take the Sailor background, and get proficiency with Vehicles (Water). Easy peasy.
Does proficiency with water vehicles give you proficiency for tying knots? How about climbing? Would you allow water vehicle proficiency to give bonuses to skill checks not near a boat? Etc.
They say "I'm a sailor, I should be proficient in anything a sailor does. Why do I have to pick all these other things unrelated to sailing, and why can't I pick 'Sailing' as one of my skills?"
Then you take the Sailor background, and get proficiency with Vehicles (Water). Easy peasy.
Does proficiency with water vehicles give you proficiency for tying knots? How about climbing? Would you allow water vehicle proficiency to give bonuses to skill checks not near a boat? Etc.
I don't estimate that it is easy peasy.
They just wanted to be a sailor who knew how to sail. The background by definition makes you a sailor, and the proficiency means you know how to sail. As Sposta pointed out, the background also gives you proficiency to climbing thru Athletics, but that's not inherently part of sailing. If you want to add Rope to the list of available tool proficiencies, I doubt anyone would object, but it's also reasonable to just fold it into a lot of backgrounds that have "uses rope" as part of thier job description, as I've never heard of anyone selling thier skills as a "Tying Knots Expert". As to bonuses when not near water, you'll have to be more specific, and share why you think being a sailor would do that. There is nothing in the background or any of its parts that state "only works within 50' of water" or whathaveyou.
I wasn't saying nobody could be a sailor in 5e. I was pointing out a simple example of what the sort of person who wants to run something like Background Proficiency might say. "I don't want to have to try and think through and justify a bunch of weird granular choices that may or may not do what I want it to do, I want to say to the DM 'I'm a sailor' and have them understand that to mean I'm good at anything a sailor would be good at. If I'm doing something a sailor should be good at I get my bonus, if I'm not then I don't."
Note that Verenti's entire point and stance, the whole thrust of their King-of-5e list, is to cut out as many rules as possible. No race/species distinctions at all, four classes with a minimum of subclass botheration, no skills - it's all designed to abstract/de-res character creation enough that a player can play anything they like simply by saying "I'm an [X]" and expecting the DM to roll with it. A lot of people find that sort of play, where there's only an absolute minimum of necessary 'Rules' and where all of the flavor, characterization, and specialization of your character is basically cosmetic, to be deeply alluring. DMs like it because it's much less work to get everybody pointed in the same direction, players like it because it's less mental overhead and theoretically more fluid and free in the chargen step.
Personally I find the idea mostly abhorent, and the notion that eliminating any/all rules you possibly can from a game tends to lead to less engagement rather than more. if, as one example, every last single martial weapon-using character in the whole entire game is a 'Fighter', with no subclass variations and no option to do anything but the base 'Fighter' stuff? Then why bother? Why make any sort of decision concerning your character, if those decisions will never have any weight, meaning, impact, or effect in play? The idea that one can simply 'narrate your style!' and have it be a satisfying experience is deeply, fundamentally false to me. If I have a choice in front of me to play a cursed swordsman, someone who draws strength and power from a dark, eldritch nightmare within their blade and substitutes that power for skill to reave their foes, or a disciplined and highly skilled master of the blade who's spent their entire life learning the art of the sword? I want those two characters to feel substantially different to play. I want there to be real, significant mechanical differences in how those two characters work. I would not play a game in which both of them are "fighter, but one of them is narrated all spooky and the other is narrated all wuxia-y."
Im mostly fine with how armor is right now in 5e, but Id like to see a handful of options that come with a Special property (similar to Nets and Lances being exceptions for general weapons). Maybe make Spiked Armor have some benefit that extends to anyone wearing it, not just Battleragers. Maybe introduce a Buckler shield which has a Special property to use your reaction to parry attacks. Idk. I want spicier armor thats nonmagical
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I wasn't saying nobody could be a sailor in 5e. I was pointing out a simple example of what the sort of person who wants to run something like Background Proficiency might say. "I don't want to have to try and think through and justify a bunch of weird granular choices that may or may not do what I want it to do, I want to say to the DM 'I'm a sailor' and have them understand that to mean I'm good at anything a sailor would be good at. If I'm doing something a sailor should be good at I get my bonus, if I'm not then I don't."
Note that Verenti's entire point and stance, the whole thrust of their King-of-5e list, is to cut out as many rules as possible. No race/species distinctions at all, four classes with a minimum of subclass botheration, no skills - it's all designed to abstract/de-res character creation enough that a player can play anything they like simply by saying "I'm an [X]" and expecting the DM to roll with it. A lot of people find that sort of play, where there's only an absolute minimum of necessary 'Rules' and where all of the flavor, characterization, and specialization of your character is basically cosmetic, to be deeply alluring. DMs like it because it's much less work to get everybody pointed in the same direction, players like it because it's less mental overhead and theoretically more fluid and free in the chargen step.
Personally I find the idea mostly abhorent, and the notion that eliminating any/all rules you possibly can from a game tends to lead to less engagement rather than more. if, as one example, every last single martial weapon-using character in the whole entire game is a 'Fighter', with no subclass variations and no option to do anything but the base 'Fighter' stuff? Then why bother? Why make any sort of decision concerning your character, if those decisions will never have any weight, meaning, impact, or effect in play? The idea that one can simply 'narrate your style!' and have it be a satisfying experience is deeply, fundamentally false to me. If I have a choice in front of me to play a cursed swordsman, someone who draws strength and power from a dark, eldritch nightmare within their blade and substitutes that power for skill to reave their foes, or a disciplined and highly skilled master of the blade who's spent their entire life learning the art of the sword? I want those two characters to feel substantially different to play. I want there to be real, significant mechanical differences in how those two characters work. I would not play a game in which both of them are "fighter, but one of them is narrated all spooky and the other is narrated all wuxia-y."
I'm not anti-rules, per se. I just think there is such a thing as rules encumbrance and there are some rules that I don't think that some of those rules are worth the headspace that they cost.
I love rules light games. Numenera and other games that require the players to do all of the rolling have really spectacular effects on GMing for me.
However, the spirit of my King-of-5e list, I would say, is more about getting rid of some systems that really bog down players needlessly or are inefficient. I've heard the argument that defined skills really box in the player and, if I were empowered to reform D&D, I'm willing to give that experiment a chance. I'd like to see if, over a generation, getting rid of set skills would get players to think about the game much more liberally.
As for the classes, I think there are a bunch of classes that don't need to be completely different classes. Rangers, Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians can all be the same class: guy who hits things good. I don't think that paladins should be removed per se, but they are "fighter with cleric spells" and Rangers are "fighter with druid spells." I think they'd be cooler as subclasses.
Also, I don't think things like animal companions or pacts with devils or lockpicking and stealth should be restricted to a single class. Again, I've heard arguments that introducing thieves (rogues) to D&D was a huge mistake. All sorts of classes should be free to pick locks (and we have that to some extent in the criminal background).
And yeah, I think anyone should be able to form a pact with a devil and get warlock powers and it should come at a heavy cost. But I don't think there should be a class and I don't think people should be able to start as "warlocks" from level 1. It should emerge as part of the campaign and require a Faustian bargain.
A lot of these systems are mental prisons and we should try to live without them, even if that means "nuking" D&D to get rid of them. I'm willing to do that because I'm not Jeremy Crawford or Mike Mearls. I know my "plan" will have zero consequence, that's why I'm free to take a rather extreme stance.
I'd rather see D&D do new things rather than fail to do the same thing again and again. I'd even like to see D&D do some old things again: like the idea that as players get stronger, they start accumulating reputation and get seen as a local leader and realise that the tools they need to affect the world aren't swords or spells but words and politics and armies. As their reach grows, they need to delegate their responsibility and create structures that last and endure past their ability to swing a sword. Yes, I know Matt Colville still exists. I even know what he would say to this: that most players aren't interested in that level of play. I still think its important.
I'm not anti-rules, per se. I just think there is such a thing as rules encumbrance and there are some rules that I don't think that some of those rules are worth the headspace that they cost.
I love rules light games. Numenera and other games that require the players to do all of the rolling have really spectacular effects on GMing for me.
However, the spirit of my King-of-5e list, I would say, is more about getting rid of some systems that really bog down players needlessly or are inefficient. I've heard the argument that defined skills really box in the player and, if I were empowered to reform D&D, I'm willing to give that experiment a chance. I'd like to see if, over a generation, getting rid of set skills would get players to think about the game much more liberally.
As for the classes, I think there are a bunch of classes that don't need to be completely different classes. Rangers, Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians can all be the same class: guy who hits things good. I don't think that paladins should be removed per se, but they are "fighter with cleric spells" and Rangers are "fighter with druid spells." I think they'd be cooler as subclasses.
Also, I don't think things like animal companions or pacts with devils or lockpicking and stealth should be restricted to a single class. Again, I've heard arguments that introducing thieves (rogues) to D&D was a huge mistake. All sorts of classes should be free to pick locks (and we have that to some extent in the criminal background).
And yeah, I think anyone should be able to form a pact with a devil and get warlock powers and it should come at a heavy cost. But I don't think there should be a class and I don't think people should be able to start as "warlocks" from level 1. It should emerge as part of the campaign and require a Faustian bargain.
A lot of these systems are mental prisons and we should try to live without them, even if that means "nuking" D&D to get rid of them. I'm willing to do that because I'm not Jeremy Crawford or Mike Mearls. I know my "plan" will have zero consequence, that's why I'm free to take a rather extreme stance.
I'd rather see D&D do new things rather than fail to do the same thing again and again. I'd even like to see D&D do some old things again: like the idea that as players get stronger, they start accumulating reputation and get seen as a local leader and realise that the tools they need to affect the world aren't swords or spells but words and politics and armies. As their reach grows, they need to delegate their responsibility and create structures that last and endure past their ability to swing a sword. Yes, I know Matt Colville still exists. I even know what he would say to this: that most players aren't interested in that level of play. I still think its important.
Please note, I'm not intending to pick on you, I simply find that some of these are points worth discussing.
Insofar as "rules-lite games": I tend to find rules-light games to be annoying. The more Rules-Lite a game gets, the more I wonder why I'm paying godawful amounts of money for game books that have no instruction or utility in them beyond "Use Your Imagination!(TM)" I've played completely rules-free, freeform writing-game 'role playing games' for what amounts to my entire adult life; I do not need to hand some gaming company several hundred dollars for the privilege of being told to Use My Imagination(C). If there is no game development going on in a given game? If there's nothing there save the loosest of guiderails for shepherding players along on an Imagination Story? If there's no game in a given game? Then I tend to see very little reason to make with the wallet treats, as I can do that all perfectly peachy-keen fine by my own dang self. Other people cannot, and that's fine - but the less work a game company does to develop their game, the more they risk people realizing that they do not, in fact, need that company's expensive books to play out an Imagination Story.
How would you go about handling skill checks in a system with no skills or skill bonuses? Resort to base ability checks, with absolutely no differentiation between one character's +3 STR and another character's +3 STR? Background Proficiency a'la the "I'm a sailor, I get a bonus to anything sailor-y" system? Something else? While I very much understand bitterness towards the over-rigid skill list provided by 5e, 'nothing at all' strikes me as a less functional replacement. Rules are not merely encumrbance but also guideline - the list of skills indicates to newer players what they might want to be good at, and gives them a place to start building up a character. "Ooh, Animal Handling is a skill? Does that mean I can be the person who's really good at calming animals and making them do stuff for me? I'll have to ask the DM about that!" sort of thing.
Subclasses, as they exist in 5e, are half-assed bullshit that does almost nothing to differentiate two characters. I could perhaps see "make everything a subclass", but if the subclasses changed enough to warrant being folded into the same base class, then much of the reason for having them all part of the base class would be lost. If the paladin, for example, was nothing more than a divine-flavored Eldritch Knight, nobody would ever play paladins because the Eldritch Knight is incredibly weak, anemic, and extremely, frustratingly bad at being an awesome sword sorcerer/Magic Knight Guy.
There's a lot of stuff D&D does wrong, and things I wish they'd do better. But I do think that engaging with the game part of "Role Playing Game" is not a bad thing. Fun tactical challenges and gamist moments where you can put your playing-the-game skills to the test rather than your acting-the-part skills are supposed to be part and parcel of the TTRPG experience. Neither half of the game is remotely intreresting without the other - if all I wanted was an Imagination Story Experience, I can head to a bookstore and buy books for a tiny fraction of the cost of a TTRPG habit, and if all I wanted was a Gaming Challenge, that's why the gods invented Steam.
I didn't take offence or think you were trying to pick on me. I just wanted to elaborate on some of my points that I felt were being, unintentionally, misrepresented.
I'll answer more in detail later, but it's about 2:30 am here at present.
I'm not anti-rules, per se. I just think there is such a thing as rules encumbrance and there are some rules that I don't think that some of those rules are worth the headspace that they cost.
I love rules light games. Numenera and other games that require the players to do all of the rolling have really spectacular effects on GMing for me.
However, the spirit of my King-of-5e list, I would say, is more about getting rid of some systems that really bog down players needlessly or are inefficient. I've heard the argument that defined skills really box in the player and, if I were empowered to reform D&D, I'm willing to give that experiment a chance. I'd like to see if, over a generation, getting rid of set skills would get players to think about the game much more liberally.
As for the classes, I think there are a bunch of classes that don't need to be completely different classes. Rangers, Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians can all be the same class: guy who hits things good. I don't think that paladins should be removed per se, but they are "fighter with cleric spells" and Rangers are "fighter with druid spells." I think they'd be cooler as subclasses.
Also, I don't think things like animal companions or pacts with devils or lockpicking and stealth should be restricted to a single class. Again, I've heard arguments that introducing thieves (rogues) to D&D was a huge mistake. All sorts of classes should be free to pick locks (and we have that to some extent in the criminal background).
And yeah, I think anyone should be able to form a pact with a devil and get warlock powers and it should come at a heavy cost. But I don't think there should be a class and I don't think people should be able to start as "warlocks" from level 1. It should emerge as part of the campaign and require a Faustian bargain.
A lot of these systems are mental prisons and we should try to live without them, even if that means "nuking" D&D to get rid of them. I'm willing to do that because I'm not Jeremy Crawford or Mike Mearls. I know my "plan" will have zero consequence, that's why I'm free to take a rather extreme stance.
I'd rather see D&D do new things rather than fail to do the same thing again and again. I'd even like to see D&D do some old things again: like the idea that as players get stronger, they start accumulating reputation and get seen as a local leader and realise that the tools they need to affect the world aren't swords or spells but words and politics and armies. As their reach grows, they need to delegate their responsibility and create structures that last and endure past their ability to swing a sword. Yes, I know Matt Colville still exists. I even know what he would say to this: that most players aren't interested in that level of play. I still think its important.
Please note, I'm not intending to pick on you, I simply find that some of these are points worth discussing.
Insofar as "rules-lite games": I tend to find rules-light games to be annoying. The more Rules-Lite a game gets, the more I wonder why I'm paying godawful amounts of money for game books that have no instruction or utility in them beyond "Use Your Imagination!(TM)" I've played completely rules-free, freeform writing-game 'role playing games' for what amounts to my entire adult life; I do not need to hand some gaming company several hundred dollars for the privilege of being told to Use My Imagination(C). If there is no game development going on in a given game? If there's nothing there save the loosest of guiderails for shepherding players along on an Imagination Story? If there's no game in a given game? Then I tend to see very little reason to make with the wallet treats, as I can do that all perfectly peachy-keen fine by my own dang self. Other people cannot, and that's fine - but the less work a game company does to develop their game, the more they risk people realizing that they do not, in fact, need that company's expensive books to play out an Imagination Story.
How would you go about handling skill checks in a system with no skills or skill bonuses? Resort to base ability checks, with absolutely no differentiation between one character's +3 STR and another character's +3 STR? Background Proficiency a'la the "I'm a sailor, I get a bonus to anything sailor-y" system? Something else? While I very much understand bitterness towards the over-rigid skill list provided by 5e, 'nothing at all' strikes me as a less functional replacement. Rules are not merely encumrbance but also guideline - the list of skills indicates to newer players what they might want to be good at, and gives them a place to start building up a character. "Ooh, Animal Handling is a skill? Does that mean I can be the person who's really good at calming animals and making them do stuff for me? I'll have to ask the DM about that!" sort of thing.
Subclasses, as they exist in 5e, are half-assed bullshit that does almost nothing to differentiate two characters. I could perhaps see "make everything a subclass", but if the subclasses changed enough to warrant being folded into the same base class, then much of the reason for having them all part of the base class would be lost. If the paladin, for example, was nothing more than a divine-flavored Eldritch Knight, nobody would ever play paladins because the Eldritch Knight is incredibly weak, anemic, and extremely, frustratingly bad at being an awesome sword sorcerer/Magic Knight Guy.
There's a lot of stuff D&D does wrong, and things I wish they'd do better. But I do think that engaging with the game part of "Role Playing Game" is not a bad thing. Fun tactical challenges and gamist moments where you can put your playing-the-game skills to the test rather than your acting-the-part skills are supposed to be part and parcel of the TTRPG experience. Neither half of the game is remotely intreresting without the other - if all I wanted was an Imagination Story Experience, I can head to a bookstore and buy books for a tiny fraction of the cost of a TTRPG habit, and if all I wanted was a Gaming Challenge, that's why the gods invented Steam.
Re: Rules Light
There are obviously degrees of rules light. I agree, no rules is not ideal. However, I think rules that are light enough to allow the GM to implement their ideas on the fly without referring back to the books for 10 minutes every 5 minutes are pretty good. I remember running a game of the Modiphius Star Trek RPG during testing and spending like 30 minutes flipping through the book to find out how a rule actually worked.
This was a bigger problem before digital books and automation made 80's RPGs more accessible. The issue at play I think is this though: the more specific rules you develop for a game, 1) the more rules you have to remember both as a player and a GM and 2) the less likely the GM is going to just make a judgement based on what they think is reasonable. Rules light doesn't necessarily mean without rules, it could just mean that everything uses a unified resolution mechanic, so you don't need to know the specific rules for tying knots (those do exist in D&D), you just need to estimate how difficult it is and use the same system you use for any problem.
Re: Skills
Those are certainly all options. For D&D, I would maybe use the idea of a background system. Certainly, that seems to work for Fate. Maybe every class and background have some concepts attached to them and you have a if an action lines up? You get advantage. If it lines up with a negative trait? Disadvantage. No proficiency.
Re: Subclasses
Then why wouldn't we buff subclasses? Why would we leave them the same if we were going to radically change the class structure? Why would we bring paladins down to EKs, when we could raise EKs to being the level of Paladins?
That said, I don't agree. I think subclasses can radically change the way a character is played. Some less than others, however, I think it matters based on how well the player can capitalise on the unique aspects of the subclass.
Re: Mechanical play
I absolutely agree. However, one system should feed into the other. They don't exist in isolation after all. My "aim" was never to eliminate mechanics. It was to eliminate mechanics that I think are limiting the game.
There are obviously degrees of rules light. I agree, no rules is not ideal. However, I think rules that are light enough to allow the GM to implement their ideas on the fly without referring back to the books for 10 minutes every 5 minutes are pretty good. I remember running a game of the Modiphius Star Trek RPG during testing and spending like 30 minutes flipping through the book to find out how a rule actually worked.
This was a bigger problem before digital books and automation made 80's RPGs more accessible. The issue at play I think is this though: the more specific rules you develop for a game, 1) the more rules you have to remember both as a player and a GM and 2) the less likely the GM is going to just make a judgement based on what they think is reasonable. Rules light doesn't necessarily mean without rules, it could just mean that everything uses a unified resolution mechanic, so you don't need to know the specific rules for tying knots (those do exist in D&D), you just need to estimate how difficult it is and use the same system you use for any problem.
I think it's interesting that you argue for a simpler and rules lite approach with a resolution system rather than spelled mechanics for each situation, but then offer a game system that does that. Everything in STA is resolved I pretty.much the same way. Every player has the same list of Attributes and Disciplines (but with different scores). When a player decides to perform a task, the GM picks one appropriate Attribute and one appropriate Discipline. That provides a target. Each die rolled that gets under that target is a success. The GM decides how many success you need to succeed at the task (obviously more successes means more difficult), then the player decides how many dice they'll use and roll them. Every task is pretty much the same. Extended tasks and timed tasks are a bit more complex but work in a similar manner. Starship combat also uses the same mechanic, although it's mandated how it's done.
The point is, it uses that unified resolution mechanic that you ask for. You're doing the same thing (mechanically speaking) to resolve every situation. It still took you far longer to resolve an in-game issue where you didn't understand how to resolve a situation than it's ever taken me to resolve a situation in D&D. It doesn't provide the universal solution you are looking for. It alsonbrings its own problems. You can't have the complex interplay that you've in 5e. In STA, mechanically speaking, you can shoot or melee. There's no distinction between doing different things other than the GM saying "OK, il allow that, but it'll be more difficult, you need to succeed with one more die to succeed overall)". In 5e, you get to choose an awful lot. You can choose you governing ability (to an extent), you can choose damage dice, who has to roll for success, and so forth. As such, STA is much more reliant on the narrative ability of the GM to make it fun - because mechanically speaking, there is very little agency involved in how you approach a situation.
That's not to say STA is boring, they've added in some interesting mechanics (ones that might improve D&D, maybe), and it's much easier to modify an adventure on the fly. As an axample, in 5e, to modify a fight, you need to have a good knowledge of the appropriate bestiary to know an appropriately themed creature at an appropriate CR to add to a fight, or you clone a creature that's already there. In STA, you just take an appropriate race, and add their version of a character level. If you're fighting Romulans and suddenly feel inspired to have a Borg attack, and you feel that 3 minor NPCs are an appropriate addition, you get 3 of the Borg minor NPCs and you're done (compared to 5e, if you want Kobolds, you then have to think of what kind of Kobolds wouod best match your party level, then adjust how many Kobolds you need based on that, or maybe there no appropriate CR Kobolds so you have to think of another appropriate race that does have them, etc etc).
However, the unified resolution mechanic is only a small improvement. Resolution mechanics have to be somewhat complex in order to be interesting (hence their invention of extended and timed tasks), so there just tends to be an increase in complexity elsewhere to compensate. It also forces quite a few changes that would radically alter how the game works - enough that it wouldn't be the same game anymore.
I thinkna better solution, which seems to be my answer to a lot of complaints, is to train DMs better. Teach them that he game is theirs to run. It doesn’t matter if they don't get it completely in line with RAW, they just need to get get the game going and keep it moving. If they want to change something, they can, and should. WotC simply offers suggestions on how to do things so we don't have to invent them. WotC offers us a pick and mix, and we choose what we want. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand that their table is their game, not WotC's, which is why DM's interrupt a game to look up a rule, or they moaned about a race having certain ASIs - if you don't like it, change it. Don't know a rule? Make it up for now, look it up afterwards. Change it to RAW afterwards - or keep it if you prefer your one. It's your game.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Turn the current “vulnerability” into “critical vulnerability” and make a lesser version of it that affects more creatures.
They used to be all those things.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
>Summoner
Wildfire Druid, Battle Smith Artificer, Primeval Druid (in the Giant UA), Shepherd Druid, Conjurer Wizard (especially after the Tasha's summons), Clerics even if you think of Spirit Guardians and a few other staples as summons.
> Professional (Archeologist, Journalist, Private Investigator, and Secret Agent)
Literally Archeologist is a background, but if you insist, Lore Bard/Rogue for Archeologist, and the rest are just rogues. There's even a subclass for them! Inquisitive Rogue! oh and for secret agent, you can use Whispers Bard too (because the gnomish Trust in Eberron would definitely use Whispers bards)
>Psionic (based on the scrapped Unearthed Arcana for Mystics)
While I wouldn't do Mystic base *at all*, I do agree with this one at least.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
You're not seriously suggesting WOTC put in so much effort that damage types genuinely matter, are you? That's crazy-talk. Next you'll point out that because all 5E instances of desiccation are necrotic, plants with fire vulnerability should instead have necrotic vulnerability. *Lunacy*.
If I was King of 5e I wouldn't have let Mordenkain do Volo what Edison did to Tesla lol. :P
Skill-less systems exist. Cortex, the system Fandom acquired and did nothing with a few years ago, instead invites players to set a descriptor about themselves such as "I'm a journalist", and then take a bonus on die rolls to do things the player and DM agree that The Journalist should be able to do.
It's effectively a variant proficiency system, and in fact this exact system is presented in the DMG as a variant option called Background Proficiency. Some players strongly prefer such options, considering them to promote more fluid play and to reinforce the importance of background in a game that often brushes background off as inconsequential. Even without this background proficiency system or a fixed skill list, players would be able to do things. Those things would simply boil down to ability checks with the most relevant ability modifier, which is also something some players prefer. The granularity of the 5e skill system, even as basic and rudimentary as it is, feels restrictive and artificial to some players. They say "I'm a sailor, I should be proficient in anything a sailor does. Why do I have to pick all these other things unrelated to sailing, and why can't I pick 'Sailing' as one of my skills?"
Personally, I prefer a more concrete system. The "argue about it" proficiency systems are murder on a game's pacing, since each and every skill check turns into a three minute horse-trading session mid-game as the player argues for getting their bonus and the DM tries to find the correct Aku Face setting to get them to understand that no, their background doesn't apply to every check they make. Background Proficiency also prevents any sort of training or growth - what you're good at when the game starts is the only thing you'll ever be good at, and that kinda defeats the purpose of the whole thing to me.
Nevertheless. The argument that fixed skills are essential to RPGs is provably false - 5e offers a few ways to do without them, and other systems are built without skills completely. Arguments that fixed skills are beneficial are another matter. I do believe that fixed capital-S Skills, with a name and a function, are of benefit to the game overall. 5e's list is too short and designed for settings that it doesn't really hold up to, but then again I'm a big fan of GURPS dedicating a three-digit page count to a list of skills GMs can assemble for their game so my opinion is perhaps a little canted compared to The 5e Aggregate Whole.
Please do not contact or message me.
If I was king of 5e, I would make D&D a lot less complicated and then bring back Advanced D&D and make that a little more complex. That way people who want a simple system can have it, and people who want a more complex system can have it, and I would make them both compatible with all the adventures so that hat it would maximize the value of those adventures.
Some really good stuff here.
As a lot of the Jazz masters said: "First learn to play off the sheet, then learn to play what's not on the sheet, and then learn what not to play".
I think Yurei's suggestions suit an experienced group of players who know the game well. I worry that they increase the complexity challenge for beginners.
Great homebrew suggestions.
Then you take the Sailor background, and get proficiency with Vehicles (Water). Easy peasy.
Does proficiency with water vehicles give you proficiency for tying knots? How about climbing? Would you allow water vehicle proficiency to give bonuses to skill checks not near a boat? Etc.
I don't estimate that it is easy peasy.
Sailor background also includes Athletics proficiency which covers climbing. Knot tying is Sleight of Hand. Of course those skills would work when not near a boat.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
They just wanted to be a sailor who knew how to sail. The background by definition makes you a sailor, and the proficiency means you know how to sail. As Sposta pointed out, the background also gives you proficiency to climbing thru Athletics, but that's not inherently part of sailing. If you want to add Rope to the list of available tool proficiencies, I doubt anyone would object, but it's also reasonable to just fold it into a lot of backgrounds that have "uses rope" as part of thier job description, as I've never heard of anyone selling thier skills as a "Tying Knots Expert". As to bonuses when not near water, you'll have to be more specific, and share why you think being a sailor would do that. There is nothing in the background or any of its parts that state "only works within 50' of water" or whathaveyou.
I wasn't saying nobody could be a sailor in 5e. I was pointing out a simple example of what the sort of person who wants to run something like Background Proficiency might say.
"I don't want to have to try and think through and justify a bunch of weird granular choices that may or may not do what I want it to do, I want to say to the DM 'I'm a sailor' and have them understand that to mean I'm good at anything a sailor would be good at. If I'm doing something a sailor should be good at I get my bonus, if I'm not then I don't."
Note that Verenti's entire point and stance, the whole thrust of their King-of-5e list, is to cut out as many rules as possible. No race/species distinctions at all, four classes with a minimum of subclass botheration, no skills - it's all designed to abstract/de-res character creation enough that a player can play anything they like simply by saying "I'm an [X]" and expecting the DM to roll with it. A lot of people find that sort of play, where there's only an absolute minimum of necessary 'Rules' and where all of the flavor, characterization, and specialization of your character is basically cosmetic, to be deeply alluring. DMs like it because it's much less work to get everybody pointed in the same direction, players like it because it's less mental overhead and theoretically more fluid and free in the chargen step.
Personally I find the idea mostly abhorent, and the notion that eliminating any/all rules you possibly can from a game tends to lead to less engagement rather than more. if, as one example, every last single martial weapon-using character in the whole entire game is a 'Fighter', with no subclass variations and no option to do anything but the base 'Fighter' stuff? Then why bother? Why make any sort of decision concerning your character, if those decisions will never have any weight, meaning, impact, or effect in play? The idea that one can simply 'narrate your style!' and have it be a satisfying experience is deeply, fundamentally false to me. If I have a choice in front of me to play a cursed swordsman, someone who draws strength and power from a dark, eldritch nightmare within their blade and substitutes that power for skill to reave their foes, or a disciplined and highly skilled master of the blade who's spent their entire life learning the art of the sword? I want those two characters to feel substantially different to play. I want there to be real, significant mechanical differences in how those two characters work. I would not play a game in which both of them are "fighter, but one of them is narrated all spooky and the other is narrated all wuxia-y."
Please do not contact or message me.
Im mostly fine with how armor is right now in 5e, but Id like to see a handful of options that come with a Special property (similar to Nets and Lances being exceptions for general weapons). Maybe make Spiked Armor have some benefit that extends to anyone wearing it, not just Battleragers. Maybe introduce a Buckler shield which has a Special property to use your reaction to parry attacks. Idk. I want spicier armor thats nonmagical
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
I'm not anti-rules, per se. I just think there is such a thing as rules encumbrance and there are some rules that I don't think that some of those rules are worth the headspace that they cost.
I love rules light games. Numenera and other games that require the players to do all of the rolling have really spectacular effects on GMing for me.
However, the spirit of my King-of-5e list, I would say, is more about getting rid of some systems that really bog down players needlessly or are inefficient. I've heard the argument that defined skills really box in the player and, if I were empowered to reform D&D, I'm willing to give that experiment a chance. I'd like to see if, over a generation, getting rid of set skills would get players to think about the game much more liberally.
As for the classes, I think there are a bunch of classes that don't need to be completely different classes. Rangers, Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians can all be the same class: guy who hits things good. I don't think that paladins should be removed per se, but they are "fighter with cleric spells" and Rangers are "fighter with druid spells." I think they'd be cooler as subclasses.
Also, I don't think things like animal companions or pacts with devils or lockpicking and stealth should be restricted to a single class. Again, I've heard arguments that introducing thieves (rogues) to D&D was a huge mistake. All sorts of classes should be free to pick locks (and we have that to some extent in the criminal background).
And yeah, I think anyone should be able to form a pact with a devil and get warlock powers and it should come at a heavy cost. But I don't think there should be a class and I don't think people should be able to start as "warlocks" from level 1. It should emerge as part of the campaign and require a Faustian bargain.
A lot of these systems are mental prisons and we should try to live without them, even if that means "nuking" D&D to get rid of them. I'm willing to do that because I'm not Jeremy Crawford or Mike Mearls. I know my "plan" will have zero consequence, that's why I'm free to take a rather extreme stance.
I'd rather see D&D do new things rather than fail to do the same thing again and again. I'd even like to see D&D do some old things again: like the idea that as players get stronger, they start accumulating reputation and get seen as a local leader and realise that the tools they need to affect the world aren't swords or spells but words and politics and armies. As their reach grows, they need to delegate their responsibility and create structures that last and endure past their ability to swing a sword. Yes, I know Matt Colville still exists. I even know what he would say to this: that most players aren't interested in that level of play. I still think its important.
Please note, I'm not intending to pick on you, I simply find that some of these are points worth discussing.
Insofar as "rules-lite games": I tend to find rules-light games to be annoying. The more Rules-Lite a game gets, the more I wonder why I'm paying godawful amounts of money for game books that have no instruction or utility in them beyond "Use Your Imagination!(TM)" I've played completely rules-free, freeform writing-game 'role playing games' for what amounts to my entire adult life; I do not need to hand some gaming company several hundred dollars for the privilege of being told to Use My Imagination(C). If there is no game development going on in a given game? If there's nothing there save the loosest of guiderails for shepherding players along on an Imagination Story? If there's no game in a given game? Then I tend to see very little reason to make with the wallet treats, as I can do that all perfectly peachy-keen fine by my own dang self. Other people cannot, and that's fine - but the less work a game company does to develop their game, the more they risk people realizing that they do not, in fact, need that company's expensive books to play out an Imagination Story.
How would you go about handling skill checks in a system with no skills or skill bonuses? Resort to base ability checks, with absolutely no differentiation between one character's +3 STR and another character's +3 STR? Background Proficiency a'la the "I'm a sailor, I get a bonus to anything sailor-y" system? Something else? While I very much understand bitterness towards the over-rigid skill list provided by 5e, 'nothing at all' strikes me as a less functional replacement. Rules are not merely encumrbance but also guideline - the list of skills indicates to newer players what they might want to be good at, and gives them a place to start building up a character. "Ooh, Animal Handling is a skill? Does that mean I can be the person who's really good at calming animals and making them do stuff for me? I'll have to ask the DM about that!" sort of thing.
Subclasses, as they exist in 5e, are half-assed bullshit that does almost nothing to differentiate two characters. I could perhaps see "make everything a subclass", but if the subclasses changed enough to warrant being folded into the same base class, then much of the reason for having them all part of the base class would be lost. If the paladin, for example, was nothing more than a divine-flavored Eldritch Knight, nobody would ever play paladins because the Eldritch Knight is incredibly weak, anemic, and extremely, frustratingly bad at being an awesome sword sorcerer/Magic Knight Guy.
There's a lot of stuff D&D does wrong, and things I wish they'd do better. But I do think that engaging with the game part of "Role Playing Game" is not a bad thing. Fun tactical challenges and gamist moments where you can put your playing-the-game skills to the test rather than your acting-the-part skills are supposed to be part and parcel of the TTRPG experience. Neither half of the game is remotely intreresting without the other - if all I wanted was an Imagination Story Experience, I can head to a bookstore and buy books for a tiny fraction of the cost of a TTRPG habit, and if all I wanted was a Gaming Challenge, that's why the gods invented Steam.
Please do not contact or message me.
I didn't take offence or think you were trying to pick on me. I just wanted to elaborate on some of my points that I felt were being, unintentionally, misrepresented.
I'll answer more in detail later, but it's about 2:30 am here at present.
Re: Rules Light
There are obviously degrees of rules light. I agree, no rules is not ideal. However, I think rules that are light enough to allow the GM to implement their ideas on the fly without referring back to the books for 10 minutes every 5 minutes are pretty good. I remember running a game of the Modiphius Star Trek RPG during testing and spending like 30 minutes flipping through the book to find out how a rule actually worked.
This was a bigger problem before digital books and automation made 80's RPGs more accessible. The issue at play I think is this though: the more specific rules you develop for a game, 1) the more rules you have to remember both as a player and a GM and 2) the less likely the GM is going to just make a judgement based on what they think is reasonable. Rules light doesn't necessarily mean without rules, it could just mean that everything uses a unified resolution mechanic, so you don't need to know the specific rules for tying knots (those do exist in D&D), you just need to estimate how difficult it is and use the same system you use for any problem.
Re: Skills
Those are certainly all options. For D&D, I would maybe use the idea of a background system. Certainly, that seems to work for Fate. Maybe every class and background have some concepts attached to them and you have a if an action lines up? You get advantage. If it lines up with a negative trait? Disadvantage. No proficiency.
Re: Subclasses
Then why wouldn't we buff subclasses? Why would we leave them the same if we were going to radically change the class structure? Why would we bring paladins down to EKs, when we could raise EKs to being the level of Paladins?
That said, I don't agree. I think subclasses can radically change the way a character is played. Some less than others, however, I think it matters based on how well the player can capitalise on the unique aspects of the subclass.
Re: Mechanical play
I absolutely agree. However, one system should feed into the other. They don't exist in isolation after all. My "aim" was never to eliminate mechanics. It was to eliminate mechanics that I think are limiting the game.
I think it's interesting that you argue for a simpler and rules lite approach with a resolution system rather than spelled mechanics for each situation, but then offer a game system that does that. Everything in STA is resolved I pretty.much the same way. Every player has the same list of Attributes and Disciplines (but with different scores). When a player decides to perform a task, the GM picks one appropriate Attribute and one appropriate Discipline. That provides a target. Each die rolled that gets under that target is a success. The GM decides how many success you need to succeed at the task (obviously more successes means more difficult), then the player decides how many dice they'll use and roll them. Every task is pretty much the same. Extended tasks and timed tasks are a bit more complex but work in a similar manner. Starship combat also uses the same mechanic, although it's mandated how it's done.
The point is, it uses that unified resolution mechanic that you ask for. You're doing the same thing (mechanically speaking) to resolve every situation. It still took you far longer to resolve an in-game issue where you didn't understand how to resolve a situation than it's ever taken me to resolve a situation in D&D. It doesn't provide the universal solution you are looking for. It alsonbrings its own problems. You can't have the complex interplay that you've in 5e. In STA, mechanically speaking, you can shoot or melee. There's no distinction between doing different things other than the GM saying "OK, il allow that, but it'll be more difficult, you need to succeed with one more die to succeed overall)". In 5e, you get to choose an awful lot. You can choose you governing ability (to an extent), you can choose damage dice, who has to roll for success, and so forth. As such, STA is much more reliant on the narrative ability of the GM to make it fun - because mechanically speaking, there is very little agency involved in how you approach a situation.
That's not to say STA is boring, they've added in some interesting mechanics (ones that might improve D&D, maybe), and it's much easier to modify an adventure on the fly. As an axample, in 5e, to modify a fight, you need to have a good knowledge of the appropriate bestiary to know an appropriately themed creature at an appropriate CR to add to a fight, or you clone a creature that's already there. In STA, you just take an appropriate race, and add their version of a character level. If you're fighting Romulans and suddenly feel inspired to have a Borg attack, and you feel that 3 minor NPCs are an appropriate addition, you get 3 of the Borg minor NPCs and you're done (compared to 5e, if you want Kobolds, you then have to think of what kind of Kobolds wouod best match your party level, then adjust how many Kobolds you need based on that, or maybe there no appropriate CR Kobolds so you have to think of another appropriate race that does have them, etc etc).
However, the unified resolution mechanic is only a small improvement. Resolution mechanics have to be somewhat complex in order to be interesting (hence their invention of extended and timed tasks), so there just tends to be an increase in complexity elsewhere to compensate. It also forces quite a few changes that would radically alter how the game works - enough that it wouldn't be the same game anymore.
I thinkna better solution, which seems to be my answer to a lot of complaints, is to train DMs better. Teach them that he game is theirs to run. It doesn’t matter if they don't get it completely in line with RAW, they just need to get get the game going and keep it moving. If they want to change something, they can, and should. WotC simply offers suggestions on how to do things so we don't have to invent them. WotC offers us a pick and mix, and we choose what we want. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand that their table is their game, not WotC's, which is why DM's interrupt a game to look up a rule, or they moaned about a race having certain ASIs - if you don't like it, change it. Don't know a rule? Make it up for now, look it up afterwards. Change it to RAW afterwards - or keep it if you prefer your one. It's your game.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.