D&D General Ready for playtest: a "5E-lite" retroclone

[HephaistosFnord]

I designed this primarily to allow rich "first tier" play without encouraging "build optimization" wankery.

There's three classes: Warrior, Expert, Magic-User. Ten levels per class. Three subclasses per class. Dual-classing if you want it.

Simplified-5E combat system. No "bonus actions". Lots more defensive options that use your reaction. More streamlined "weapon mastery" and "fighting style" type stuff. Wounds, fatigue and streamlined conditions for other-than-hitpoint damage stuff.

Three spell levels per spell list. Streamlined, standardized "one hour rest" type powers.

Standardized hex-crawling exploration system. Standardized dungeon exploration system separate from combat encounters. Combat only takes up 50% of the rules instead of 70% or so.

Would love some feedback:
Materia Mundi (B5X)

 

[ezo]

Cool, I love this sort of stuff and it's along the lines of what I'm working on with some friends, "Streamlined" being the best word.

I should have time to read through it this weekend hopefully, and I'll post feedback once I do!

 

[dave2008]

Just looked through the ToC so far. First thought, I am not sure this is 5e "lite." At least the number of different Saves would suggest otherwise. Regardless, it looks interesting. I will give my thoughts when I have more time to give it a read.

 

[dave2008]

OK, took a quick skim now and i will amend my previous post a bit. I would not call this 5e lite. It is not 5e at all IMO. It seems like a fun game, but I would tether it to 5e in anyway. Heck I feel Shadowdark is more 5e lite than this and that game claims to OSR.

To be clear, I am not knocking you game. I just don't think it helps you be relating it to 5e. In fact, I think it harms you.

If I get more time I will give you my thoughts on the actual mechanics of the game.

 

[HephaistosFnord]

ok, but however I wind up trying to present it, ppl tell me I'm wrong - even if I try to present it the way the last ppl told me to!

So not sure even what to call it.

 

[ezo]

I definitely concur with @dave2008 that this is not 5E "lite" really. When I see 5E-lite, I think of 5E with fewer and more simplified options, using the same rules without adding new systems or mechanics.

Also, you are using concepts and such from prior editions, sort of OSR. I know "labeling" a 5E-based can be difficult and with some of the grittier aspects, I would go with the 5E-hybrid OSR label.

That aside, I like that you are using some of the variants from 5E, like proficiency dice. However, since this isn't actually a 5E-lite game, I doubt I'll have much more time to review it. Sorry for that, but life and all, you know.

Best of luck with it. I think more of the OSR crowd would appreciate it.

 

[Krachek]

More heavy than 5ed.

 

[TiQuinn]

I designed this primarily to allow rich "first tier" play without encouraging "build optimization" wankery.

There's three classes: Warrior, Expert, Magic-User. Ten levels per class. Three subclasses per class. Dual-classing if you want it.

Simplified-5E combat system. No "bonus actions". Lots more defensive options that use your reaction. More streamlined "weapon mastery" and "fighting style" type stuff. Wounds, fatigue and streamlined conditions for other-than-hitpoint damage stuff.

Three spell levels per spell list. Streamlined, standardized "one hour rest" type powers.

Standardized hex-crawling exploration system. Standardized dungeon exploration system separate from combat encounters. Combat only takes up 50% of the rules instead of 70% or so.

Would love some feedback:
Materia Mundi (B5X)

You mention tracking fatigue but it’s not on the character sheet. I’m also a little confused on the different categories of saving throws - I’m not sure what problem you were trying to overcome with them or situation they’re trying to model. Combat taking up less space is fine but it’s still the primary focus, if that makes sense. It’s not giving more space to rules dealing with social encounter or exploration - a different mode of play.

Do you need exceptional and critical successes? If you’re trying to simplify stuff, I don’t know if that helps.

You don’t like halflings, do you?

I think the spell section needs some work. I like that you’re trying to simplify the language but having the ranges and numerical mechanics in the text makes it hard to look quickly and figure out what you need. Also not totally sure I get the cantrip piece of each spell. Again, I would go back to “what is this trying to do that benefits the game?”

 

[HephaistosFnord]

More heavy than 5ed.

really? can you explain what makes you say that?

 

[HephaistosFnord]

I definitely concur with @dave2008 that this is not 5E "lite" really. When I see 5E-lite, I think of 5E with fewer and more simplified options, using the same rules without adding new systems or mechanics.

Also, you are using concepts and such from prior editions, sort of OSR. I know "labeling" a 5E-based can be difficult and with some of the grittier aspects, I would go with the 5E-hybrid OSR label.

That aside, I like that you are using some of the variants from 5E, like proficiency dice. However, since this isn't actually a 5E-lite game, I doubt I'll have much more time to review it. Sorry for that, but life and all, you know.

Best of luck with it. I think more of the OSR crowd would appreciate it.

OSR ppl claim it's nothing like OSR, which makes it 5E. 5E ppl claim it's nothing like 5E, which makes it OSR.

I may have messed up.