PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Homebrew Setting/Rules: Neolithic Arcana (Ver. 2.0)



R.Shackleford
2018-08-28, 12:26 PM
It's been a while since I've gotten to spend some quality time playing D&D but some friends and I were able to get together and make an update to the Neolithic Arcana rules/setting.

http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HJZkXmxGw7

Got rid of some added houserule elements, added some new ideas, took out some classes... Changed some feats...


Anyways, it's far from perfect but for now this is what one of my groups will be running :).

The first adventure is going to be a heist movie, more or less, so things should be fun.

Edit: Best viewed in Chrome, firefox and edge gets weird.

Vogie
2018-08-28, 02:53 PM
It's been a while since I've gotten to spend some quality time playing D&D but some friends and I were able to get together and make an update to the Neolithic Arcana rules/setting.
http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HJZkXmxGw7
Got rid of some added houserule elements, added some new ideas, took out some classes... Changed some feats...
Anyways, it's far from perfect but for now this is what one of my groups will be running :).
The first adventure is going to be a heist movie, more or less, so things should be fun.

Okay, that's pretty sparse.

A Monk classes for Open hand, Drunken Master & Kensai? Since you're stopping at 10, you'll avoid nearly all of the supernatural elements from the Monk Base.

The Spell-less Ranger could allow that class in and Berzerker Barbarian would fit in your world.

R.Shackleford
2018-08-28, 03:33 PM
Okay, that's pretty sparse.

A Monk classes for Open hand, Drunken Master & Kensai? Since you're stopping at 10, you'll avoid nearly all of the supernatural elements from the Monk Base.

The Spell-less Ranger could allow that class in and Berzerker Barbarian would fit in your world.

The monk's core ability of "Ki" is called mystical energy and magic. Plus, to use a lot of monk abilities you have to use ki. Ki's fluff is very much magic and just doesn't fit. A magic-less monk would probably work best as a subclass that can be taken by the Fighter or Rogue.

The Barbarian has, like, 2 subclasses that don't fall into magic. Beserker and Battlerager. Even totem gives a magic spell at 10th level.

The barbarian is close enough to the fighter that homebrewing subclasses into fighter subclasses or even giving alternate class features (rage) instead of an entire class.

Ranger is mostly the same way as the last "spell less" ranger, haven't taken a look at it in a while, was mostly just a fighter with a ranger slant. So subclasses would work a lot better in this case.

===

Edit: If there was more classes that didn't depend on magic, I would love it, but sadly 5e tries to force magic on to everyone and everything.

I love playing magic classes and hybrids, but I love playing some good old martial classes too. Not everything cool needs to be magic.

Vogie
2018-08-28, 09:40 PM
The monk's core ability of "Ki" is called mystical energy and magic. Plus, to use a lot of monk abilities you have to use ki. Ki's fluff is very much magic and just doesn't fit. A magic-less monk would probably work best as a subclass that can be taken by the Fighter or Rogue.


I mean, you can certainly do you, but it sounds like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of making the fighter class even more complicated, it helps to diversify.

Even if you rename monk a wanderer, a "bareknuckle boxer", a Brawler, et cetera, and change the mechanic from "your access to the mystic energy Ki is represented by a number of ki points" to "Your training in quick strikes has given you an edge over those who may be stronger, is represented by a number of Edge points". Suddenly, it's not mystical or magical at all, it's just Wing Chun, or any other martial art. Like I said, all of the actual mystical mechanics in the monk class happen from level 11 onward... if you're hung up on the word "ki" just change the word. No mechanical changes needed, just fluff

It just seems odd to have no characters that have an option to fight nonarmored in a Neolithic-setting game. I like the idea of a no-gish, low-magic environment.

Basically, the spell-less ranger replaced the spells from the ranger class with the Maneuvers from the Battlemaster subclass. I would try to diversify your class options outside of 9+++ fighter options, 5 rogue options and... nothing else.

You could quite easily go to:
Barbarian

Berzerker
Battlerager
Fighter

Brute
Cavalier
Champion
Purple Dragon Knight
Samurai
Ranger (spell-less, using Battlemaster Maneuvers instead of spells)

Monster Slayer
Hunter
Sharpshooter
Revised Beastmaster?
Rogue

Inquisitive
Mastermind
Scout
Swashbuckler
Thief
Wanderer

Open Hand
Drunken Master
Kensai
War Drummer/Storyteller(Bard)

Derpaligtr
2018-08-29, 11:43 AM
I mean, you can certainly do you, but it sounds like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of making the fighter class even more complicated, it helps to diversify.

Even if you rename monk a wanderer, a "bareknuckle boxer", a Brawler, et cetera, and change the mechanic from "your access to the mystic energy Ki is represented by a number of ki points" to "Your training in quick strikes has given you an edge over those who may be stronger, is represented by a number of Edge points". Suddenly, it's not mystical or magical at all, it's just Wing Chun, or any other martial art. Like I said, all of the actual mystical mechanics in the monk class happen from level 11 onward... if you're hung up on the word "ki" just change the word. No mechanical changes needed, just fluff

It just seems odd to have no characters that have an option to fight nonarmored in a Neolithic-setting game. I like the idea of a no-gish, low-magic environment.

Basically, the spell-less ranger replaced the spells from the ranger class with the Maneuvers from the Battlemaster subclass. I would try to diversify your class options outside of 9+++ fighter options, 5 rogue options and... nothing else.

You could quite easily go to:
Barbarian

Berzerker
Battlerager
Fighter

Brute
Cavalier
Champion
Purple Dragon Knight
Samurai
Ranger (spell-less, using Battlemaster Maneuvers instead of spells)

Monster Slayer
Hunter
Sharpshooter
Revised Beastmaster?
Rogue

Inquisitive
Mastermind
Scout
Swashbuckler
Thief
Wanderer

Open Hand
Drunken Master
Kensai
War Drummer/Storyteller(Bard)


Seems like you're adding things that are already there.

Why have a fighter and a ranger, if the difference is just fluff? The fighter and the rogue apecifically play differently whereas a ranger would play similar to either the fighter or rogue.

A monk, paladin, and bard (non-magics) would all play like a Fighter or Rogue, so making then their own class seems a bit like wasting space.

Monster Hunter Fighter pretty much is a Ranger. Grab the skilled feat, maybe alter it a bit, and you have a very rangery ranger.

A fighter with the protection style, some charisma skills, and a focus on helping others makes for a fine magic-less Paladin.

Bard? Probably want to go rogue for that one and make it a subclass that xan always use Charisma with spell gems and have some charisma skills.

Barbarians don't need rage to play like barbarians. Reckless Attack is a great substitute for rage, especially on the fighter chassis.

I would make unarmored defense part of the base rules.

Barbarian:

3: Reckless Attack, Danger Sense.
6: Feral Senses, Fast Movement
9: Brutal Critical

Vogie
2018-08-29, 11:57 AM
Why have a fighter and a ranger, if the difference is just fluff? The fighter and the rogue apecifically play differently whereas a ranger would play similar to either the fighter or rogue.

I made a mechanical distinction - Rangers, in addition to the normal ranger mechanics like favored enemy and natural explorer, and had less attacks, but had access to maneuvers.


A monk, paladin, and bard (non-magics) would all play like a Fighter or Rogue, so making then their own class seems a bit like wasting space.

... No? Monks are unarmored (and often weaponless) quick fighters, Paladins are heavily armored, plodding fighters, and Bard were already reduced to a support subclass that doesn't fall thematically into either fighter or rogue at all.



I mean, technically, all classes are just fluff set on top of some mechanics. In that case, why even use 5e's mechanics at all? This level of cutting is more like talking up a new style of duvet cover you made... then show off a handkerchief.

R.Shackleford
2018-08-30, 12:26 PM
First off, my wife just got me a switch out of the blue and Octopath Traveler... Hot damn am I addicted... My switch is currently charging so I have some time to respond... I'm totally not addicted or anything... I forgot to push "submit" hahaha... Yeah...

===



Seems like you're adding things that are already there.

Why have a fighter and a ranger, if the difference is just fluff? The fighter and the rogue apecifically play differently whereas a ranger would play similar to either the fighter or rogue.

A monk, paladin, and bard (non-magics) would all play like a Fighter or Rogue, so making then their own class seems a bit like wasting space.

Monster Hunter Fighter pretty much is a Ranger. Grab the skilled feat, maybe alter it a bit, and you have a very rangery ranger.

A fighter with the protection style, some charisma skills, and a focus on helping others makes for a fine magic-less Paladin.

Bard? Probably want to go rogue for that one and make it a subclass that xan always use Charisma with spell gems and have some charisma skills.

Barbarians don't need rage to play like barbarians. Reckless Attack is a great substitute for rage, especially on the fighter chassis.

I would make unarmored defense part of the base rules.

Barbarian:

3: Reckless Attack, Danger Sense.
6: Feral Senses, Fast Movement
9: Brutal Critical

I don't know about unarmored defense being part of the base rules, but as a feat I could see that working.

It wasn't until 5e came around that barbarians even got unarmored defense, from what I recall, so I wouldn't call it a must have. Maybe a feat that allows you to have 13 + (Dex, Con, Wis, or Cha) AC when not armored?





I made a mechanical distinction - Rangers, in addition to the normal ranger mechanics like favored enemy and natural explorer, and had less attacks, but had access to maneuvers.



... No? Monks are unarmored (and often weaponless) quick fighters, Paladins are heavily armored, plodding fighters, and Bard were already reduced to a support subclass that doesn't fall thematically into either fighter or rogue at all.



I mean, technically, all classes are just fluff set on top of some mechanics. In that case, why even use 5e's mechanics at all? This level of cutting is more like talking up a new style of duvet cover you made... then show off a handkerchief.

See, a monk not using weapons is still a fighter or rogue (depending on how you want to go with it, I like the idea of a Snake Martial Arts Monk using sneak attack with unarmed strikes) with different fluff. Using your hands instead of using a weapon, or monk weapon, doesn't change the overall archetype of the character. I mean, Flurry of Blows and Action Surge tend to do the same thing, give more attacks. Yes, they work differently, but the end result is mostly the same. You could use Action Surge to dash or dodge after all... I would say that a Monk would make better use of the rogue archetype than the fighter, but either can work.

After playing way too much D&D, I've found that I prefer a more generic class structure and let the player create their own character. You don't need to have the same thing done two or three times to make a diverse character. The subclass structure already does this, well, unless the classes have a conceptual different play style.

Fighters are the direct contact martial and rogues are the slippery martial. Those two play styles are just so different on a base level that they can't fit together.

The subclasses for Bard, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk will be able to be taken by either the Fighter or Rogue so that you can play with either gameplay style. I really miss the 4e Avenger which was a Paladin/Rogue type class XD.

The number one difference between fighter/rogue and ranger is really just the fluff and small little mechanical differences and not anything huge.