PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Looking for Feedback on a Massive OSR style 5E rework



tortor
2017-10-03, 01:49 PM
Hello Hivemind, I am looking for feedback on a 50ish page Character Creation / System Rework for 5E

Document Can Be Found Here! (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s1SAmXNc1wBsw9oJDwlyMWQsYM9wnOi8y1Ma5OEaDA8/edit?usp=sharing)

So basically I am about 75% finished with my first draft of a 5E hack that centers on 2 major things.

1) Moving away from the idea of "Character Sheet as permission slip" (Some examples that have come up in play before, "I have +10 intimidate but only +8 Persuasion, so I guess I'll just roll intimidate for all my negotiations." or the classic "I have a -1 to stealth so I literally can't sneak, like I won't even roll for it.")

2) Making optimization a lot less important. This is hard to pin down in words but I wanted to kind of shake off the idea of builds and embrace the idea of characters evolving through play instead of simply progressing down their pre-determined build path.

~~~~

To accomplish that I have destabilized and simplified the level up system, I've pulled in a much more OSR feeling stat generation system which ends with the near equivalent of 3d6 in order while also creating a framework backstory to help define the character a bit before they even have their class picked out.

I've also decided to convert the 5E Proficiency bonus into a die pool (A concept I explored in a rambling post on my blog (http://murderhobo-rehab.blogspot.com/2017/09/my-take-on-5e-non-combat-skills.html)) which can be added to any D20 roll, "Proficiency" in something allows you to spend 1 free die out of your pool for that roll. For the purposes of this hack I've also decoupled this mechanic from combat except where noted.

I currently have 8 classes, 3 subclasses, and 5 races. While I'm open to the idea of adding additional classes and races that's not where my focus is at the moment.

Big Questions For Feedback
- Does this seem like a system you would enjoy playing? Why or why not?
- Does this document present information in a way that a new player would be able to easily process? How can I improve this document for newer tabletop players?
- Does anything jump out at you as inherently interesting
- I'm always open to ideas for the Supertables.

Please do not just tell me I'm ****ting on bounded accuracy. I already know that.

Potato_Priest
2017-10-03, 02:28 PM
Fighters having only 10 seconds to make their actions is kind of unfair when other classes don't have that restriction.

Supertables might work well for a group that literally doesn't give a **** about their characters, but I like to be able to choose how I level up, and for that reason I'd stay well away from this.

This is fairly self explanatory, so I think new players won't have much trouble with it.

tortor
2017-10-03, 03:40 PM
Regarding Fighter Class Limited to 10 seconds -
It's my intent to put a similar disclaimer on all of the classes, thank you for pointing out the discrepancy

Regarding Ability to give a **** about characters -
This is exactly why the Supertables are actually entirely optional, you can instead choose to simply take 2 of the standardized level up options.
I also use skills as rewards, (http://rodoflordlymight.blogspot.com/2009/03/reward-with-skills-not-magic-items.html) which gives players agency in selecting what they want to do based off what their character might prioritize (EG a bard might not care that the lizard king will train him and all his allies in Pole arm combat but the Paladin might)

Composer99
2017-10-03, 07:38 PM
The rule defining the proficiency die pool seems ambiguous. I can infer from context that you're meant to begin with a pool of two four-sided dice, but read literally it suggests you roll 2d4, and the result is the number of proficiency dice you get. Given the reading from context, it's a small thing, but maybe you'd want to clean it up a bit so if this gets really popular you won't have people pestering you about proficiency dice. :smallbiggrin:

tortor
2017-10-03, 09:02 PM
That's an excellent idea, I think I have updated the language a little bit in order to more clearly express that the pool begins as 2 d4 dice, and can be increased to either 3 d4s or 2 d6s etc