Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 03, 2021, 05:03:41 PM
In the spirit of sacrificing those sacred cows in the altars of Cool & Good Gaming:

In the core rules, Which races, classes, spells, skills, feats would you leave in?

Since it's aiming to being compatible with 5e I would go for a shorter list on everything and instead of all that better play examples, better explanations thinking not everyone has any clue as to how to GM/Play.

Now, should it have as many classes as 5e? Or a much shorter list with paths?

There is a tension between a short list being more playable while allowing the most options possible.  Chris is correct that the ultimate way out of that is to separate elements (class, background, etc.) more for mix and match, but there are some brakes on that in a 5E clone.  So spitballing a compromise:

Fighter - paths for archer, knight, warrior, arcane dabbler, divine dabbler.

Ranger - paths for scout, hunter (lots of overlap with archer), beast master, nature magic dabbler.

Rogue - paths for thief, assassin, arcane dabbler (Gray Mouser!), martial arts/unarmed (depending on how far you want to push it, no KI)

Wizard (solid spell casting, practically zero combat and modest skills) - paths for battle mage (combat/magic mix), lore master (magic/skill mix), sorcerer (go all out magic), and some kind of school specialist thing where you really lather on the extra spells/abilities in that school. 

Priest - (moderate holy spell casting, modest combat and armor, modest skills) - paths for paladin, magi (need better name, all out holy magic), mystic (modest boost on casting, combat, and skills, or add KI back in), monk (if you didn't do it with the mystic).

Shaman - (moderate nature magic and skills) - paths for bard (add the magic music back in), druid (all out magic or slight magic and shapeshifting, your call), shifter (if you went all out magic on the druid), witch doctor (gets to dabble in arcane along with the nature magic)

Of course, you can and will tweak due to play testing.  It's entirely possible that the mystic will end up lame in execution but you've got another good idea that fits under priest.  If set on keeping the Bard in the "Wizard lite" category with 5E, can always replace the lore master with that.  I like my bards a little closer to the source material. 

Skills are divided into two categories:  Adventuring and Background.  Or just call the latter "Skills".  That crucial stuff that everyone uses in the typical 5E game goes into the very short Adventuring list, though you might expand it with a few call outs to classic abilities.  Perception, sneaking, climbing, etc.  Optionally, make the background skills such that they can stack based on the situation.  (Your Skullduggery adventuring lets you find traps and pick locks.  Your background in locksmith gives you a hefty bonus on the picking but not the traps, enough that can probably pick a lot of locks without even having Skullduggery.)

Now, if it were me, I'd drop to about 15 levels, give levels to backgrounds, and then tie ALL feats and background skills to leveling in the background.  Up to you whether to do 1E style multi-classing with class and background advancing together for simplicity or split them in 5E style and let the character pick where to put the XP.  No other multi-classing allowed.   You could make a case for allowing a feat use to pick up an Adventuring skill, allowing some crossover for those isolated character concepts that wants to be the warrior that picks locks, etc.  If there are some cool, iconic class abilities, those are clearly siloed in the class.  For example, in my non-clone, I've got a different initiative system where fighters that win initiative get a bonus attack at the end of the round.  I like the latter option because it lets you provide some quick and dirty templates for common choices with everything one one page, one grid for the progression.  Not every fighter is the same abilities, but every fighter/knight/noble gets the same picks.

palaeomerus, I've tried really hard to use Grace as a characteristic in 3 game designs now, and every single time it had to come out.  It sits at a strange dividing line that evidently does not make for good distinctions in games that I like.

Quote from: strcondex18cha3 on August 03, 2021, 03:44:00 PM
Of course there are. There's a diving adapted race (I forgot the name) which would be a toal game changer in an aquatic setting. East Africans have a clear endurance boost. West Africans clearly have more fast twitch muscle potential. Europeans clearly have a creativity advantage. Pygmies obviously suffer from harsh penalties regarding height, strength and so on but are probably better hunters, something they are adapted towards. I could go on and on.

Quote from: Pat on August 03, 2021, 04:20:04 PM
Sigh. That's a really broad brush you're using to paint a stereotype. It's not East Africans in general who win all those running awards. It's overwhelmingly the Oromo in Ethiopia and the Kalenjin of Kenya, who are a tiny percentage of the population of those countries. They live in a handful of villages in the Great Rift Valley. It seems to be due to a complex mix of diet, high altitudes, childhood behavior, running habits, cultural reinforcement, and other environmental factors. There may be a genetic component, but it hasn't been proven, and most of the supposed traits attributed to them in folklore have been proven to be false. The same is true for the runners of Jamaica, of West African descent.

Quote from: strcondex18cha3 on August 03, 2021, 04:40:12 PM
The list of olympic sprinters makes it abundantly clear who is talented.
Studies are increasingly unfiltered propaganda these days. They now have produced several papers showing that trannies are totally not insane, that people are comfortable with them around their children and so on.

It might not be the ACTN3 allele, it might be a hyper complex array of dozens of genes. But it does not matter. We know the result. When it comes to sprinting, there is practically no cultural filter in place. We all run. The Chinese select the best from a billion people who are highly motivated and train hard. Their system and facilities is miles ahead of anything the caribbean has to offer. It is ludicrous to tactically use genetics to disprove huge observable biological differences (I bet you love studies about IQ!). In 5-15 years, we will know which genes are responsible and they will cluster perfectly with west Africans. Just like all races have some unique talents by necessity.

Over the past century, the predictions of what racial genetics will find have not corresponded well with what was actually found. I agree that there are genes that are common only in certain areas. For example, ABCC11 causes dry ear wax and a lack of body odor predominantly in East Asians. However, dry ear wax and lack of body odor were never part of the racial stereotypes of East Asians. I don't know of any genetic discovery that has isolated any of the sort of predicted trait like you're suggesting.

But in the bigger picture, for RPG purposes, there's no utility to distinguishing what is environmental versus what is genetic. In a fantasy world, the science of genetics doesn't even exist, and old-school fantasy games have traditionally lumped together cultural, environmental, and genetic benefits. I suppose if your intent is to annoy certain people, then if fulfills that intent, go for it -- but it seems like you're annoying a lot more than just marxists.

Quote from: strcondex18cha3 on August 03, 2021, 04:43:31 PM

Quote from: Ocule on August 03, 2021, 03:58:45 PM
I can't really find a good way to make a mechanical difference between male and female. Every time I try the male human ends up being objectively just better at everything necessary for adventuring. I can make an argument for a higher charisma cap for females, due to the tendencies of being much more social thus able to persuade people and attract more followers but even that it is hard to accurately represent through just attributes the various circumstances that go into being a leader. Unless the setting has certain gender restricted classes or roles....

But yeah, if i did ever implement something like that i'd give a cap to strength for females and maybe cap male charisma? Right now I just kind of roll with the idea that players are abnormal and just represent that in the world. It's rare for me to make a female town guard or soldier unless it's a clear exception, and not the norm.

Yeah that's probably the best way for most campaigns.

I don't get this, given your previous preferences. Men and women have much more clear and important genetic differences than different human races. Despite this, it sounds like you're willing to ignore gender differences in RPGs but insist on differences for race?

Quote from: Ocule on August 03, 2021, 03:58:45 PMI can't really find a good way to make a mechanical difference between male and female. Every time I try the male human ends up being objectively just better at everything necessary for adventuring. I can make an argument for a higher charisma cap for females, due to the tendencies of being much more social thus able to persuade people and attract more followers but even that it is hard to accurately represent through just attributes the various circumstances that go into being a leader.

Last time I looked in to it, I had male humans having the higher STR, while female humans had higher CON, INT, and WIS. CON because women measurably live longer. INT because they get better grades in school. And WIS because they don't tend to kill themselves while they are young. I couldn't find any statistical evidence to justify differences in CHA or DEX. But, yes, males would have an advantage iff your party was nothing but strength based fighters.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 03, 2021, 06:47:10 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 03, 2021, 05:03:41 PM
In the spirit of sacrificing those sacred cows in the altars of Cool & Good Gaming:

In the core rules, Which races, classes, spells, skills, feats would you leave in?

Since it's aiming to being compatible with 5e I would go for a shorter list on everything and instead of all that better play examples, better explanations thinking not everyone has any clue as to how to GM/Play.

Now, should it have as many classes as 5e? Or a much shorter list with paths?

There is a tension between a short list being more playable while allowing the most options possible.  Chris is correct that the ultimate way out of that is to separate elements (class, background, etc.) more for mix and match, but there are some brakes on that in a 5E clone.  So spitballing a compromise:

Fighter - paths for archer, knight, warrior, arcane dabbler, divine dabbler.

Ranger - paths for scout, hunter (lots of overlap with archer), beast master, nature magic dabbler.

Rogue - paths for thief, assassin, arcane dabbler (Gray Mouser!), martial arts/unarmed (depending on how far you want to push it, no KI)

Wizard (solid spell casting, practically zero combat and modest skills) - paths for battle mage (combat/magic mix), lore master (magic/skill mix), sorcerer (go all out magic), and some kind of school specialist thing where you really lather on the extra spells/abilities in that school. 

Priest - (moderate holy spell casting, modest combat and armor, modest skills) - paths for paladin, magi (need better name, all out holy magic), mystic (modest boost on casting, combat, and skills, or add KI back in), monk (if you didn't do it with the mystic).

Shaman - (moderate nature magic and skills) - paths for bard (add the magic music back in), druid (all out magic or slight magic and shapeshifting, your call), shifter (if you went all out magic on the druid), witch doctor (gets to dabble in arcane along with the nature magic)

Of course, you can and will tweak due to play testing.  It's entirely possible that the mystic will end up lame in execution but you've got another good idea that fits under priest.  If set on keeping the Bard in the "Wizard lite" category with 5E, can always replace the lore master with that.  I like my bards a little closer to the source material. 

Skills are divided into two categories:  Adventuring and Background.  Or just call the latter "Skills".  That crucial stuff that everyone uses in the typical 5E game goes into the very short Adventuring list, though you might expand it with a few call outs to classic abilities.  Perception, sneaking, climbing, etc.  Optionally, make the background skills such that they can stack based on the situation.  (Your Skullduggery adventuring lets you find traps and pick locks.  Your background in locksmith gives you a hefty bonus on the picking but not the traps, enough that can probably pick a lot of locks without even having Skullduggery.)

Now, if it were me, I'd drop to about 15 levels, give levels to backgrounds, and then tie ALL feats and background skills to leveling in the background.  Up to you whether to do 1E style multi-classing with class and background advancing together for simplicity or split them in 5E style and let the character pick where to put the XP.  No other multi-classing allowed.   You could make a case for allowing a feat use to pick up an Adventuring skill, allowing some crossover for those isolated character concepts that wants to be the warrior that picks locks, etc.  If there are some cool, iconic class abilities, those are clearly siloed in the class.  For example, in my non-clone, I've got a different initiative system where fighters that win initiative get a bonus attack at the end of the round.  I like the latter option because it lets you provide some quick and dirty templates for common choices with everything one one page, one grid for the progression.  Not every fighter is the same abilities, but every fighter/knight/noble gets the same picks.

Let me see if I understood you correctly:

Wizard is the background and Battle Mage the class?

Quote from: jhkim on August 03, 2021, 06:54:37 PM

Quote from: strcondex18cha3 on August 03, 2021, 03:44:00 PM
Of course there are. There's a diving adapted race (I forgot the name) which would be a toal game changer in an aquatic setting. East Africans have a clear endurance boost. West Africans clearly have more fast twitch muscle potential. Europeans clearly have a creativity advantage. Pygmies obviously suffer from harsh penalties regarding height, strength and so on but are probably better hunters, something they are adapted towards. I could go on and on.

Quote from: Pat on August 03, 2021, 04:20:04 PM
Sigh. That's a really broad brush you're using to paint a stereotype. It's not East Africans in general who win all those running awards. It's overwhelmingly the Oromo in Ethiopia and the Kalenjin of Kenya, who are a tiny percentage of the population of those countries. They live in a handful of villages in the Great Rift Valley. It seems to be due to a complex mix of diet, high altitudes, childhood behavior, running habits, cultural reinforcement, and other environmental factors. There may be a genetic component, but it hasn't been proven, and most of the supposed traits attributed to them in folklore have been proven to be false. The same is true for the runners of Jamaica, of West African descent.

Quote from: strcondex18cha3 on August 03, 2021, 04:40:12 PM
The list of olympic sprinters makes it abundantly clear who is talented.
Studies are increasingly unfiltered propaganda these days. They now have produced several papers showing that trannies are totally not insane, that people are comfortable with them around their children and so on.

It might not be the ACTN3 allele, it might be a hyper complex array of dozens of genes. But it does not matter. We know the result. When it comes to sprinting, there is practically no cultural filter in place. We all run. The Chinese select the best from a billion people who are highly motivated and train hard. Their system and facilities is miles ahead of anything the caribbean has to offer. It is ludicrous to tactically use genetics to disprove huge observable biological differences (I bet you love studies about IQ!). In 5-15 years, we will know which genes are responsible and they will cluster perfectly with west Africans. Just like all races have some unique talents by necessity.

Over the past century, the predictions of what racial genetics will find have not corresponded well with what was actually found. I agree that there are genes that are common only in certain areas. For example, ABCC11 causes dry ear wax and a lack of body odor predominantly in East Asians. However, dry ear wax and lack of body odor were never part of the racial stereotypes of East Asians. I don't know of any genetic discovery that has isolated any of the sort of predicted trait like you're suggesting.

But in the bigger picture, for RPG purposes, there's no utility to distinguishing what is environmental versus what is genetic. In a fantasy world, the science of genetics doesn't even exist, and old-school fantasy games have traditionally lumped together cultural, environmental, and genetic benefits. I suppose if your intent is to annoy certain people, then if fulfills that intent, go for it -- but it seems like you're annoying a lot more than just marxists.

Quote from: strcondex18cha3 on August 03, 2021, 04:43:31 PM

Quote from: Ocule on August 03, 2021, 03:58:45 PM
I can't really find a good way to make a mechanical difference between male and female. Every time I try the male human ends up being objectively just better at everything necessary for adventuring. I can make an argument for a higher charisma cap for females, due to the tendencies of being much more social thus able to persuade people and attract more followers but even that it is hard to accurately represent through just attributes the various circumstances that go into being a leader. Unless the setting has certain gender restricted classes or roles....

But yeah, if i did ever implement something like that i'd give a cap to strength for females and maybe cap male charisma? Right now I just kind of roll with the idea that players are abnormal and just represent that in the world. It's rare for me to make a female town guard or soldier unless it's a clear exception, and not the norm.

Yeah that's probably the best way for most campaigns.

I don't get this, given your previous preferences. Men and women have much more clear and important genetic differences than different human races. Despite this, it sounds like you're willing to ignore gender differences in RPGs but insist on differences for race?

Worst, he's derailing the thread to his racial essentialism discussion. Instead of creating his own thread to discuss how better to anoy the SJWs.

Quote from: palaeomerus on August 03, 2021, 06:20:18 PM
Some idea detritus
<snip>
Well there is a pile of...stuff.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 03, 2021, 07:04:03 PM
Let me see if I understood you correctly:

Wizard is the background and Battle Mage the class?

No, Wizard is the class.  Battle Mage is the path/archetype/class specialization thing that you pick to finish the class, similar to how the 5E Fighter is the class and Champion is the specialization.  Compared to 5E, the classes should be relatively weak and the "paths" bring them back up to a solid mix.  That lets you do things like have Rangers with no spells (because the ones that don't pick paths with spells get other good stuff instead).  The inherent fail in the 5E implementation is that they put too much in the base class, which makes it difficult to do any serious branching with the path options.

Separate from that is the background idea.  You could do the class/path thing and leave background similar to 5E.  Or you could do what I suggested where background becomes a more powerful thing.  I suggest the latter because I think part of the problem with 5E skills is that they tried to split the baby on skills and still have the class dominate, but that doesn't work very well for what skills are supposed to represent in 5E.  There really are two different types--class stuff that is all about skill versus world simulation options.

Edit:  Also, I think race, class, background, skill, and feat is too much for D&D.  Especially with race, background, and feat being all but stubs.  Think about it from a BEMCI clone instead of a 5E clone for a minute.  We need to reserve "Class" for the final combined thing.  Then I maybe have mechanical widgets of Adventurer (Fighter, Wizard, etc.), Race, and Skills.  Each one of those have leveling things.  Mix and match to produce the class/level chart.   (I wouldn't really do a BEMCI clone that way.  Besides, ACKS already has a better class customization route that is more compatible.  It's a thought exercise to think about how to do it in 5E.)

Quote from: jhkim on August 03, 2021, 06:54:37 PM
Over the past century, the predictions of what racial genetics will find have not corresponded well with what was actually found. I agree that there are genes that are common only in certain areas. For example, ABCC11 causes dry ear wax and a lack of body odor predominantly in East Asians. However, dry ear wax and lack of body odor were never part of the racial stereotypes of East Asians. I don't know of any genetic discovery that has isolated any of the sort of predicted trait like you're suggesting.

But in the bigger picture, for RPG purposes, there's no utility to distinguishing what is environmental versus what is genetic. In a fantasy world, the science of genetics doesn't even exist, and old-school fantasy games have traditionally lumped together cultural, environmental, and genetic benefits. I suppose if your intent is to annoy certain people, then if fulfills that intent, go for it -- but it seems like you're annoying a lot more than just marxists.

Well, most people, even those who claim they hate marxists play along the approved narrative which is why we ultimately have a consensus on almost every ghastly development. Look at the many dissonant responses.
For RPG, this means that more wokisms are the future, exactly because too many are afraid of dumb labels like "racist" or "bigot" which are largely meaningless and are just standins for convoluted taboos.
I like my fantasy RPGs racial, with Dwarves as a grumpy mountain people, Orcs as evil plunderers and so forth.
However, as we slip into clown world, the insane policies transcend reality and must seep into the virtual.
This is why we can't have evil orcs and weaker women.
I absolutely agree that fantasy races and the sex differences are, broadly speaking, bigger than most racial gaps between humans (even though some differences are arguably bigger). But that is beside the point. We shouldn't argue technicalities with people who do not argue in good conscience. They want to win at all costs. And they are winning

You're also quite wrong about genetics but let's not go there, it doesn't matter that much as we are talking politics and culture.

Quote from: jhkim on August 03, 2021, 06:54:37 PM
I don't get this, given your previous preferences. Men and women have much more clear and important genetic differences than different human races. Despite this, it sounds like you're willing to ignore gender differences in RPGs but insist on differences for race?

It is simply a best practise. I would prefer a well made RPG with clear gender/sex modifiers, where women enjoy better social skills and so on.
But it is what it is. If somebody wants to play a badass amazon, who am I to disagree? "You'll be quite the freakshow for most peasants". As long as the rest of the world is still consistent I don't give a crap.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 03, 2021, 07:18:25 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 03, 2021, 07:04:03 PM
Let me see if I understood you correctly:

Wizard is the background and Battle Mage the class?

No, Wizard is the class.  Battle Mage is the path/archetype/class specialization thing that you pick to finish the class, similar to how the 5E Fighter is the class and Champion is the specialization.  Compared to 5E, the classes should be relatively weak and the "paths" bring them back up to a solid mix.  That lets you do things like have Rangers with no spells (because the ones that don't pick paths with spells get other good stuff instead).  The inherent fail in the 5E implementation is that they put too much in the base class, which makes it difficult to do any serious branching with the path options.

Separate from that is the background idea.  You could do the class/path thing and leave background similar to 5E.  Or you could do what I suggested where background becomes a more powerful thing.  I suggest the latter because I think part of the problem with 5E skills is that they tried to split the baby on skills and still have the class dominate, but that doesn't work very well for what skills are supposed to represent in 5E.  There really are two different types--class stuff that is all about skill versus world simulation options.

Edit:  Also, I think race, class, background, skill, and feat is too much for D&D.  Especially with race, background, and feat being all but stubs.  Think about it from a BEMCI clone instead of a 5E clone for a minute.  We need to reserve "Class" for the final combined thing.  Then I maybe have mechanical widgets of Adventurer (Fighter, Wizard, etc.), Race, and Skills.  Each one of those have leveling things.  Mix and match to produce the class/level chart.   (I wouldn't really do a BEMCI clone that way.  Besides, ACKS already has a better class customization route that is more compatible.  It's a thought exercise to think about how to do it in 5E.)

Okay, so background is your occupation prior to becoming and adventurer yes? Like what DCC does but with a bit more mechanical impact I guess?

GB, If given levels, I'd make background a little more like Culture/5E Background.  It's what you came from but also informs some of your options as you level.  Barbarian would be a background.  It can have some real mechanical heft that way, gated by levels.  But yeah, if you went the more conservative option to preserve compatibility with 5E, then it would just be 5E backgrounds, perhaps with a little of the cultural stuff moved out of 5E races (notably, weapon and armor proficiency). 

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 03, 2021, 07:40:59 PM
GB, If given levels, I'd make background a little more like Culture/5E Background.  It's what you came from but also informs some of your options as you level.  Barbarian would be a background.  It can have some real mechanical heft that way, gated by levels.  But yeah, if you went the more conservative option to preserve compatibility with 5E, then it would just be 5E backgrounds, perhaps with a little of the cultural stuff moved out of 5E races (notably, weapon and armor proficiency).

So like the cultural background in my totally not Conan game.

I don't think it has to be 100% a copy of 5e, after all we want to make a better game.

Yes, Barbarian doesn't make sense as a Class, never has and never will. Now as a cultural background...

The point of the thread here is discussing a D&D clone. I don't think within the context of a fantasy game that has pixies, giants, lizardmen, animated statues, trolls, magical beings of every shape and description, that we need to worry too much about differences in human subspecies. Now, can you have a different setting that is a lot more grounded and human-centric, sure. I really don't see a problem with a variety human subspecies in a fantasy world being described with certain advantages or disadvantages.

Either way it's sort of annoying people aren't able to be productive in their ideas.

Quote from: Zalman on August 03, 2021, 05:46:09 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on August 03, 2021, 04:39:07 PM
Strength was a gimme for me just because its such a quantifiable real thing.

That sounds convenient to me.

Static strength is easy to quantify; functional strength -- the kind useful for fighting enemies, for example -- is notoriously difficult or impossible to quantify.

For example, does "Strength" in your game benefit Climbing? Because there is an inverse relationship between being a strong powerlifter and a good climber.

Ditto for "fighting". Notice how champion fighters are lean, while champion weightlifters are thick. Guys that can press 300lbs get mauled in the ring.

Now I'm not saying your ability scores aren't good: if they follow from the setting and the player-character experience you're trying to create, then they're fine. But I wouldn't go so far as to claim "strength is quantifiable, therefore it's a good ability score for my game."

Well, note that in my description of Strength I specifically point out that the score IS measuring static strength. Pushing past the static values is a function of the Fitness skill that keys off the Endurance attribute.

The Fitness (Endurance) skill is also used for climbing and swimming checks.

Attacks using strength will add, at most, +2 hit over just being proficient with the weapon** (but adds more to damage) on a d20 check... so minimal.

Base Load for my equivalent of an 18 Strength is 150 lb.; you need the Mighty Strength background boon to get to weightlifter type lifting and carrying values.

So, yeah, I actually have considered those things in my evaluation of Strength as an obvious attribute.

* the system uses a rather strict form of what 5e calls bounded accuracy. Characters with skill in a weapon can either use their Strength or Reflexes (depending onnthe weapon) -or- a flat value of 3 for the attack roll (but always use Strength or Reflexes for the damage roll). Attribute scores range from -1 to 5, but 4 is the usual "best score" for a PC because getting a 5 in something really compromises your other scores (i.e. you could have a 4, 3, 2, 1, 1, -1 -or- 5, 3, 1, 0, 0, -1).

So the weakling wizard with a -1 Str but who's actually skilled with a dagger has a +6 to hit (2 for skill, 1 for the dagger being accurate and 3 in place of their Str), but deals 1d4-1 damage (average 1.5) . The strong fighter with a 4 Str and is skilled with the dagger has a slightly better +7 to hit (2 skill, 1 accurate, 4 Str), but the real difference is the 1d4+4 damage (average 6.5) they deal.

Note that a hit roll represents whether you can find an opening in your opponent's defenses and, the numbers are flat for the hit roll because once both sides are competent, there will be six-second windows of a duel where there just isn't an opening for even the greatest swordsman to exploit (though their slightly higher bonuses mean they can find some openings lesser combatants would miss). Damage is about how effectively you can exploit the openings when they do come and that's where a higher strength can make a difference with increased striking power.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 03, 2021, 05:03:41 PM
In the spirit of sacrificing those sacred cows in the altars of Cool & Good Gaming:

In the core rules, Which races, classes, spells, skills, feats would you leave in?

Since it's aiming to being compatible with 5e I would go for a shorter list on everything and instead of all that better play examples, better explanations thinking not everyone has any clue as to how to GM/Play.

Now, should it have as many classes as 5e? Or a much shorter list with paths?

So *my* goal would be simple: to emulate "D&D" on a d20 chassis with as much inclusion of the old stuff as needed to give us "the D&D" experience.

Stats - I'd keep them as they are.

Classes - Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard as a baseline. We can get trickier later. If we can get a solid baseline of the big four, the inevitable expansion of classes will follow. The core concept here being once we establish what a "Class" is, we can balance them better downstream by including both benefits/penalties that will scale with the assumption of difficulty. Preferably against one another. So we might end up with a whole host of "Abilities" that we could assign a value on based on the styles of play that will cause those values to rise/fall. This is important because it means we have to cover the foundations of Combat, Social, Magic, Crafting, General Task resolution, and FEED those loops with Class-level abilities. This will insure we put the proper weight on each class which will make them lucrative for players, as well as GM's who will have the proper systems to engage those classes.

Skills - These would require a re-do. Depending on the Task Resolution circuits. The skill lists should provide the differentiation that will fuel all the Task resolution areas: Weapon Proficiencies for Combat, Persuasion, Intimidation etc. for Social, <X>Smithing for Crafting, etc. Speciality skills might be necessary as some secondary tier of effect (like you get a higher bonus with a narrow band) but I'd probably make this optional.

Big Changes
The biggest changes I'd advocate for is something that most players never realize, but any GM that's run D&D of any edition for a length of time will understand: the sweet spot for the game is broadly between 7th and 12th level. One of the issues that has proliferated through every single edition - EXCEPT for Basic, which St. Gary was already on the record about: the game really wasn't made to go beyond 10th level.

There is a mathematical reason for this. It's not that it can't be done, it's just that the system growth over succeeding editions made the game much harder to manage despite the narrative goalposts moving ever upwards into cosmic level encounters which only exist in Adventure Modules which are very "manicured" affairs. Even then it's a headache to manage with later editions of the game. This is because in order to justify the 20-levels of progression the benefits of leveling do not keep pace with the assumed power-levels outside of spellcasting. This is, and always has been, a huge scaling issue which has been for the last three editions of the game, tried different ways to mitigate.

I do not question for a single moment that players and GM's **WANT** this kind of play. They want either granularity of setting where yes, there is that Lancelot motherfucker standing on the bridge in his chrome full-plate telling King Arthur(!) and his army to fuck right off, unless they can unhorse him. And the system can accommodate that assumed 15th+ level of play cleanly right alongside encounters with your Pseudo-Gandalf and the PC-party stand-ins for the Fellowship throwing down with four Pit Fiends er-Balrogs and their throngs of Orcs.

5e at this scale doesn't work well because it relies on HP stacks and, frankly weak design to overcome the assumed scale of power. My bet is by condensing these levels down and keeping the values lower - but the scaling the results higher as well as corresponding sub-systems you'll get WAY more bang for your buck.

Look as everyone knows I'm into Savage Worlds. I can fit a 20th level D&D PC into Savage Worlds and it would fit on an index care (or thereabouts) he would FEEL dangerous, he would BE dangerous. He'd be more flexible in what he could do in-game outside of "just being a Fighter" because there are more things to support not just his character but ALL characters - QUICKLY and EASILY.

I'm not saying D&D *can't* do any of these things - I'm saying it's more ponderous and clumsy and requires too many calculations for most GM's to do comparatively easily. And I'm speaking as someone that has done it for years and it's always a pain in the ass once your campaign grows beyond a certain scope. The system, not your campaign, cracks under its own weight. And it's because its holding onto these sacred cows while experiencing narrative scaling assumptions that Gary himself never intended *systemically*. I think that problem can be solved. Just like there is a Savage Worlds Pathfinder. I think there can be a Savages & Dragons on the other side of the fence.

I want all the complexity of AD&D and its later editions and their narrative promise, with a tighter d20 system that *scales*. Most campaigns never go much further than 10-levels for a reason.

So I'd rebalance the level progression to 10-levels. But I'd scale things so that 10th level play would be closer to ~15th+ level play in the current 20-lvl spread.