This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?  (Read 10946 times)

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« on: July 26, 2021, 08:50:23 PM »
What the tin says, if YOU were developing a non-woke "clone" of D&D 5e what would you change, what would you leave as is what would you import from other games?
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

1989

  • OSR
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 876
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2021, 09:15:54 PM »
I would remove the woke paragraph on gender in the 5e PHB:

"You can play a male or female character without gaining any special benefits or hindrances. Think about how your character does or does not conform to the broader culture’s expectations of sex, gender, and sexual behavior. For example, a male drow cleric defies the traditional gender divisions of drow society, which could be a reason for your character to leave that society and come to the surface.

You don’t need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon’s image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character’s sexual orientation is for you to decide."


This is homosexual/transgender propaganda.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 10:09:44 PM by 1989 »

Batjon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2021, 09:45:18 PM »
/facepalm

GriswaldTerrastone
BANNED

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 201
  • BANNED
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2021, 10:08:44 PM »
You can help stop the lunacy by using the biological term "sex" instead of "gender."

When the likes of Dr. Money started that trend, it was the "foot in the door" event that led to what we see now.

For example, if someone says "oh there are 72 different genders to the human race" I say "no, there are two sexes: male and female."

Really, just by doing that it can help.  :)


As for a non-woke clone, lessee...quite a bit would be changed or removed. But absolutely that part to start with. If it's not there the old strength rating system would be back, although because of smaller size female characters would in certain cases get a +1 to dexterity (e.g. moving along the edge of a building).
« Last Edit: July 26, 2021, 10:12:25 PM by GriswaldTerrastone »
I'm 55. My profile won't record this. It's only right younger members know how old I am.

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18318
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2021, 10:09:36 PM »
What the tin says, if YOU were developing a non-woke "clone" of D&D 5e what would you change, what would you leave as is what would you import from other games?

The short rest/long rest mechanic. I  know that would require a near complete rewrite of the game, but I always hated that rule (mainly because it makes game feel too MMORPG-ish to me).
"Meh."

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3772
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2021, 10:29:37 PM »
Mainly, I wouldn't.  Because if I'm going to the trouble to do something like that, I'm not going to be constrained by some of the 5E oddities, such as the oddball skill list.  There is no space on the Venn diagram between "compatible enough to be a 5E clone" and "changes enough to make it worth my time."  Which is why instead I'm taking a few ideas from 5E, but far more from BEMCI/RC, and then going off somewhere non-compatible with it.

However, in the spirit of the question, if I felt otherwise, here are some things I'd think long and hard about doing:

- Leave a lot of rules out.  Less classes, less races, less spells, etc.  No paladin, no monk, no warlock, no sorcerer.  Or maybe keep the paladin and drop the cleric in favor of a less armored holy caster.  I think 8 to 9 classes will cover everything if we aren't constrained by D&D traditions on the exact classes chosen.
- Add back in more classic elements from the dungeon, including "turn" based mapping--though maybe not at the 10 minute duration. 
- Give more alternate examples on how to do things in the advice, depending on the desired outcome. 
- Do a second pass on the various path choices for each class to make them more varied.  That is, slightly less items from the base class and slightly more from the path.
- Make the Ranger (and Paladin if kept) not casters by default, but have them with a path caster options, similar to how the Fighter and Rogue have their casting paths.

But the biggest one of all (and traipsing into non-clone territory) is generally shrink the numbers all around.  In particular, make hit points scale more slowly with level.

Zelen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 861
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2021, 10:49:49 PM »
  • Players start with a feat
  • Fix a few outlier feats
  • Fewer Races, more meaningful Race options (e.g. Human, Dwarf, Elf)
  • Players roll defenses
  • Tweaks to classes
  • Inspiration gets replaced with Fate-like system where player can invoke an aspect for advantage
  • Combat turns get progressively more deadly each round to reduce slogs
  • Replace Good/Evil axis with Based/Woke in all alignment descriptions

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2021, 12:25:17 PM »
I would remove the woke paragraph on gender in the 5e PHB:

"You can play a male or female character without gaining any special benefits or hindrances. Think about how your character does or does not conform to the broader culture’s expectations of sex, gender, and sexual behavior. For example, a male drow cleric defies the traditional gender divisions of drow society, which could be a reason for your character to leave that society and come to the surface.

You don’t need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon’s image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character’s sexual orientation is for you to decide."


This is homosexual/transgender propaganda.

  Seems just having the player in question allow their character a girdle of masculinity/femininity would solve the issue of trapped in the wrong body QUICK.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2021, 12:38:21 PM »
I would remove the woke paragraph on gender in the 5e PHB:

"You can play a male or female character without gaining any special benefits or hindrances. Think about how your character does or does not conform to the broader culture’s expectations of sex, gender, and sexual behavior. For example, a male drow cleric defies the traditional gender divisions of drow society, which could be a reason for your character to leave that society and come to the surface.

You don’t need to be confined to binary notions of sex and gender. The elf god Corellon Larethian is often seen as androgynous or hermaphroditic, for example, and some elves in the multiverse are made in Corellon’s image. You could also play a female character who presents herself as a man, a man who feels trapped in a female body, or a bearded female dwarf who hates being mistaken for a male. Likewise, your character’s sexual orientation is for you to decide."


This is homosexual/transgender propaganda.

  Seems just having the player in question allow their character a girdle of masculinity/femininity would solve the issue of trapped in the wrong body QUICK.

That seems to be something each table could easily implement on their own, no need to include it in no rules.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

Jam The MF

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2021, 01:14:14 PM »
I'd remove Jeremy Crawford, and add the RPGPundit.  Then I'd let the rewrite begin.

That would help a lot.  Jeremy is emblematic of the new and current direction of D&D.

Cheers!!!
Let the Dice, Decide the Outcome.  Accept the Results.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2021, 01:33:20 PM »
I'd remove Jeremy Crawford, and add the RPGPundit.  Then I'd let the rewrite begin.

That would help a lot.  Jeremy is emblematic of the new and current direction of D&D.

Cheers!!!

LOL, the dream team would certainly include Pundit, Thomden and lots others from this forum IMHO. Good luck convincing them.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2021, 03:30:18 PM »
I would remove the woke paragraph on gender in the 5e PHB:

That seems to be something each table could easily implement on their own, no need to include it in no rules.

LOL, the dream team would certainly include Pundit, Thomden and lots others from this forum IMHO. Good luck convincing them.

At the time, Pundit was a big proponent of that woke paragraph. He wrote about it back in 2014:

Quote
I was completely and explicitly in favor of Wizards including that, just as they did.  Contrary to what you have implied I have never  and would never be opposed to inclusion on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.  I have always been firmly in support of gay rights; I have had gay and bisexual players in my gaming groups, my wife (The Wench) and I lived for many years with a gay couple renting our spare bedroom, I have been a supporter of LGBT rights in Uruguay (which is one of the most progressive countries in South America on that note, where not only has gay marriage and adoption been legalized but anyone from the age of 12 onwards has a right to choose the gender stated on their identity card), and to my knowledge (maybe someone can point me to a pre-existing work that proves otherwise, but if so I did not hear of it) my Arrows of Indra is the first RPG to feature a transgendered character on the cover.

It's true that in some areas I would be seen as "conservative" by the broken dualistic concepts the U.S. paradigm is stuck with; but this is not one of those areas.
Source: https://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/07/if-youre-going-to-hate-me-at-least-do.html


Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #12 on: July 27, 2021, 03:51:01 PM »
Mainly, I wouldn't.  Because if I'm going to the trouble to do something like that, I'm not going to be constrained by some of the 5E oddities, such as the oddball skill list.  There is no space on the Venn diagram between "compatible enough to be a 5E clone" and "changes enough to make it worth my time.”
As I explained previously in the other thread, this is basically where I’m at; there’s enough wonky and/or against my preferences in 5e to not be worth me doing a 5e retroclone, but instead do my own system.

My start point was 4E, but with a mission to “question everything” which did result in some changes in the direction of some 5e mechanics, but ultimately resulted in a system as distinct from D&D as Palladium’s system (which is why I felt comfortable with dropping the WotC OGL/d20SRD so I can have my own Open System License with zero ties to WotC).

Like Steven Mitchell, to keep on topic with the thread, here are some of my changes from 5e;

- Replaced ability scores (i.e. the 3-18/8-20) with the modifiers directly (i.e. your score is 3 instead of 16 which generates a +3 modifier). Almost nothing in 4E/5e directly references the score (in 4E only carry capacity and starting hit points reference the scores, everything else uses the modifiers).

- Tweaked the attribute list for non-OGL compliance; STRength, ENDurance, REFlexes, WITs, INTellect, and PREsence.

- Went even tighter on what 5e calls “bounded accuracy” (it increases by about +3 over 15 levels) for combat so that progression is entirely linear along the “hit point/damage dealt” axis. This means ANYTHING in sufficient numbers can be a threat to PCs regardless of their levels (even a max level hero will overwhelmed in a straight fight if outnumbered 20-1 by mooks).

- Loosened up the bounded accuracy for skills and set a number of special maneuver that would be feats and such in other systems as simply higher difficulty actions. Special abilities then give bonuses to those actions to allow those higher difficulties to be reached more reliably. The idea here is to remove the “you need X to even attempt Y” pit that a lot of 3-5e feats created.

- Also tightened up and rebalanced the skill list; Acrobatics (REF), Arcana (INT), Culture (INT), Deceit (PRE), Engineering (INT), Fitness (END), Insight (WIT), Intimidate (PRE), Medicine (WIT), Nature (WIT), Persuade (PRE) and Stealth (REF). Strength doesn’t have any skills of its own because it provides raw ability (lifting capacity, climbing and swimming speed, jump distance, plus melee weapon attacks) that is then pushed with Fitness/Endurance. Several skill uses got moved around; ex. there is no “Thievery” skill because all the picking locks/disabling traps is Engineering and all the pick pockets/sleight of hand is Stealth.

- Four defenses/rolls that use the best of two attributes as their base; Armor (STR or REF + armor), Dodge (REF or WIT), Fortitude (STR or END) and Willpower (INT or PRE).

- Constrained my equivalent of hit points across the board. It’s higher at level 1 fof PC’s (25-30 points) but the top end at level 15 isn’t even 4x that (95-114 points). By contrast non-combatants and weaker critters might have as few as 4 points.

- In the default rules the players roll most things while the GM sets target numbers. Players roll to attack an opponent’s defense target number, and roll their defense against an opponent’s attack target number. There’s a bunch of optional rules for changing who rolls what so the GM can set the system to match his own preferences (ex. Old School would be everyone rolls weapon attacks vs. defense target number and everyone rolls defense vs. spell attack target numbers).

- In keeping with more modern settings and the idea that it’s easier to cull than create, I include a wide array of races; technically its 10, but several of them; beastmen, eldritch and mutants; are basically “build your own” races (with half a dozen or so examples) where a number of different races share a common origin in the default setting.

- I broke classes up into combat-related abilities (still called classes) and non-combat abilities (backgrounds) for a mix-and-match approach* to building a PC. A D&D ranger, for example, would be a fighter class with the barbarian or traveler background, while the classic D&D fighter would be a fighter class with the military background, a paladin would be a fighter with the religious background, etc.

- The classes are Fighter (weapon wielder), Gadgeteer (arcane devices), Mystic (primal/natural magic), Theurge (divine pacts), Wizard (arcane lore) and Mastermind (doesn’t fight, but helps others fight better). Each class also has a some options that determine which attributes work best for them; ex. a fighter chooses a fighting style (strong, swift or berserker) and fighting focus (daring, tactical or wary) to determine whether they need Strength or Reflexes and Presence, Intellect or Wits (The D&D ranger would be strong or swift+wary, the D&D barbarian is berserker+daring, and the classic D&D fighter would be strong+tactical).

- Each class also chooses a path that determines how they approach combat; ex. wizards can choose abjurer (defense), benedictor (buffs), interdictor (control), maledictor (damage) or summoner (pets). Non-combat magic is part of the background.

- Backgrounds provide all the non-combat abilities, including skills. They’re designed to be fairly generic; arcanist, aristocrat, artisan, barbarian, commoner, entertainer, military, outlaw, religious, and traveler; with skills, languages and a selection of benefits they pick from as they level up (ex. the arcanist background is where you’ll find utility spells, but also can grant apprentices, familiars and special skill bonuses for learning languages, lore checks and performing rituals).

- Companions, hirelings and mercenaries, plus mass combat rules are built right into the system from the ground up (vs. needing to do conversions from the normal stats into the mass combat stats)... which was actually the original impetus for the tighter “bounded accuracy” on combat mentioned above.

- Lots of optional rules to help the GM tailor the mechanics to his liking (ex. default is “big damn heroes” where PCs start about equal to a 4th level D&D character, but there are options for starting anywhere from level 0 all the way down to level -3; the latter of which is basically equal to a 0-level D&D character).

- Focus on tools for new GMs under the idea that not everyone is going to be starting with WoketC’s games (ex. established GMs don’t need help setting up a campaign region for a sandbox campaign, but a new one could use some guidance).

- In general, put all the options into the core rather than leaving things to later supplements. Ideally a player book with a relatively low price-point should be all a player will ever need to play; supplements would be world books with locations, NPCs and monsters/traps/hazards built using the rules supplied in the core (basically paying for the convenience of not having to build them yourself).

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #13 on: July 27, 2021, 04:27:00 PM »
I would remove the woke paragraph on gender in the 5e PHB:

That seems to be something each table could easily implement on their own, no need to include it in no rules.

LOL, the dream team would certainly include Pundit, Thomden and lots others from this forum IMHO. Good luck convincing them.

At the time, Pundit was a big proponent of that woke paragraph. He wrote about it back in 2014:

Quote
I was completely and explicitly in favor of Wizards including that, just as they did.  Contrary to what you have implied I have never  and would never be opposed to inclusion on the basis of gender or sexual orientation.  I have always been firmly in support of gay rights; I have had gay and bisexual players in my gaming groups, my wife (The Wench) and I lived for many years with a gay couple renting our spare bedroom, I have been a supporter of LGBT rights in Uruguay (which is one of the most progressive countries in South America on that note, where not only has gay marriage and adoption been legalized but anyone from the age of 12 onwards has a right to choose the gender stated on their identity card), and to my knowledge (maybe someone can point me to a pre-existing work that proves otherwise, but if so I did not hear of it) my Arrows of Indra is the first RPG to feature a transgendered character on the cover.

It's true that in some areas I would be seen as "conservative" by the broken dualistic concepts the U.S. paradigm is stuck with; but this is not one of those areas.
Source: https://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/07/if-youre-going-to-hate-me-at-least-do.html

Welp, Pundit is out of the dream team then, and he's now officially too woke/progresive for my tastes, Children of age 12 choosing their "gender"? You mean children that still dream of becoming superheroes? At that age one can barelly wipe their own arse much less decide on such things.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7403
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: 5e non-woke "Clone" what would you remove or add?
« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2021, 04:34:32 PM »
Mainly, I wouldn't.  Because if I'm going to the trouble to do something like that, I'm not going to be constrained by some of the 5E oddities, such as the oddball skill list.  There is no space on the Venn diagram between "compatible enough to be a 5E clone" and "changes enough to make it worth my time.”
As I explained previously in the other thread, this is basically where I’m at; there’s enough wonky and/or against my preferences in 5e to not be worth me doing a 5e retroclone, but instead do my own system.

My start point was 4E, but with a mission to “question everything” which did result in some changes in the direction of some 5e mechanics, but ultimately resulted in a system as distinct from D&D as Palladium’s system (which is why I felt comfortable with dropping the WotC OGL/d20SRD so I can have my own Open System License with zero ties to WotC).

Like Steven Mitchell, to keep on topic with the thread, here are some of my changes from 5e;

- Replaced ability scores (i.e. the 3-18/8-20) with the modifiers directly (i.e. your score is 3 instead of 16 which generates a +3 modifier). Almost nothing in 4E/5e directly references the score (in 4E only carry capacity and starting hit points reference the scores, everything else uses the modifiers).

- Tweaked the attribute list for non-OGL compliance; STRength, ENDurance, REFlexes, WITs, INTellect, and PREsence.

- Went even tighter on what 5e calls “bounded accuracy” (it increases by about +3 over 15 levels) for combat so that progression is entirely linear along the “hit point/damage dealt” axis. This means ANYTHING in sufficient numbers can be a threat to PCs regardless of their levels (even a max level hero will overwhelmed in a straight fight if outnumbered 20-1 by mooks).

- Loosened up the bounded accuracy for skills and set a number of special maneuver that would be feats and such in other systems as simply higher difficulty actions. Special abilities then give bonuses to those actions to allow those higher difficulties to be reached more reliably. The idea here is to remove the “you need X to even attempt Y” pit that a lot of 3-5e feats created.

- Also tightened up and rebalanced the skill list; Acrobatics (REF), Arcana (INT), Culture (INT), Deceit (PRE), Engineering (INT), Fitness (END), Insight (WIT), Intimidate (PRE), Medicine (WIT), Nature (WIT), Persuade (PRE) and Stealth (REF). Strength doesn’t have any skills of its own because it provides raw ability (lifting capacity, climbing and swimming speed, jump distance, plus melee weapon attacks) that is then pushed with Fitness/Endurance. Several skill uses got moved around; ex. there is no “Thievery” skill because all the picking locks/disabling traps is Engineering and all the pick pockets/sleight of hand is Stealth.

- Four defenses/rolls that use the best of two attributes as their base; Armor (STR or REF + armor), Dodge (REF or WIT), Fortitude (STR or END) and Willpower (INT or PRE).

- Constrained my equivalent of hit points across the board. It’s higher at level 1 fof PC’s (25-30 points) but the top end at level 15 isn’t even 4x that (95-114 points). By contrast non-combatants and weaker critters might have as few as 4 points.

- In the default rules the players roll most things while the GM sets target numbers. Players roll to attack an opponent’s defense target number, and roll their defense against an opponent’s attack target number. There’s a bunch of optional rules for changing who rolls what so the GM can set the system to match his own preferences (ex. Old School would be everyone rolls weapon attacks vs. defense target number and everyone rolls defense vs. spell attack target numbers).

- In keeping with more modern settings and the idea that it’s easier to cull than create, I include a wide array of races; technically its 10, but several of them; beastmen, eldritch and mutants; are basically “build your own” races (with half a dozen or so examples) where a number of different races share a common origin in the default setting.

- I broke classes up into combat-related abilities (still called classes) and non-combat abilities (backgrounds) for a mix-and-match approach* to building a PC. A D&D ranger, for example, would be a fighter class with the barbarian or traveler background, while the classic D&D fighter would be a fighter class with the military background, a paladin would be a fighter with the religious background, etc.

- The classes are Fighter (weapon wielder), Gadgeteer (arcane devices), Mystic (primal/natural magic), Theurge (divine pacts), Wizard (arcane lore) and Mastermind (doesn’t fight, but helps others fight better). Each class also has a some options that determine which attributes work best for them; ex. a fighter chooses a fighting style (strong, swift or berserker) and fighting focus (daring, tactical or wary) to determine whether they need Strength or Reflexes and Presence, Intellect or Wits (The D&D ranger would be strong or swift+wary, the D&D barbarian is berserker+daring, and the classic D&D fighter would be strong+tactical).

- Each class also chooses a path that determines how they approach combat; ex. wizards can choose abjurer (defense), benedictor (buffs), interdictor (control), maledictor (damage) or summoner (pets). Non-combat magic is part of the background.

- Backgrounds provide all the non-combat abilities, including skills. They’re designed to be fairly generic; arcanist, aristocrat, artisan, barbarian, commoner, entertainer, military, outlaw, religious, and traveler; with skills, languages and a selection of benefits they pick from as they level up (ex. the arcanist background is where you’ll find utility spells, but also can grant apprentices, familiars and special skill bonuses for learning languages, lore checks and performing rituals).

- Companions, hirelings and mercenaries, plus mass combat rules are built right into the system from the ground up (vs. needing to do conversions from the normal stats into the mass combat stats)... which was actually the original impetus for the tighter “bounded accuracy” on combat mentioned above.

- Lots of optional rules to help the GM tailor the mechanics to his liking (ex. default is “big damn heroes” where PCs start about equal to a 4th level D&D character, but there are options for starting anywhere from level 0 all the way down to level -3; the latter of which is basically equal to a 0-level D&D character).

- Focus on tools for new GMs under the idea that not everyone is going to be starting with WoketC’s games (ex. established GMs don’t need help setting up a campaign region for a sandbox campaign, but a new one could use some guidance).

- In general, put all the options into the core rather than leaving things to later supplements. Ideally a player book with a relatively low price-point should be all a player will ever need to play; supplements would be world books with locations, NPCs and monsters/traps/hazards built using the rules supplied in the core (basically paying for the convenience of not having to build them yourself).

That reads like something I might enjoy playing, but it hardly would attract the typical 5e player as a substitute for 5e.

The idea is: IF you were to create such a substitute (clone) what would you leave in, what would you drop, what would you add.

You changed everything to such a point where it no longer resembles 5e (or D&D) at all.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell