PDA

View Full Version : So, if you were making the next edition of D&D...



SimonMoon6
2013-04-02, 12:02 PM
So, if you were making the next edition of D&D... what changes would you make? You can assume that you don't have to pander to the public; you can make any changes that you'd like to see without worrying about how well it would sell. I'm assuming a 3.x chassis for the rules, but that's not necessary.

Here's my list:

Stats would only be bonuses.
What I mean is, we wouldn't ever have to fool with those 3-18 stats that everybody tends to have. Instead of having a 12 STR, you'd have a +1 STR. Yeah, I'd include a table for converting back to the old stats if you *really* needed to, but there's no game mechanical need for the number 12 to exist. The only things I can think of that are based off of it would be dealing with ability score damage (which would change to ability bonus damage) and stat-boosting spells (which would boost the bonus instead). One thing I hate is having to look a STR of 58 and figure out what bonus goes with it. (Subtract 10 to get 48; divide by 2 to get +24.)

Dump Wisdom.
Wisdom is a stupid ability score. As far as I can tell, it's just grandfathered in from 1st edition where its main purpose was to give clerics an ability score of their own. (Fighters use STR&CON, Thieves use DEX, Wizards use INT, nobody uses CHA, and what about clerics? Let's give them a stat of their own and call it wisdom!)

What is its purpose? Force of will (bonuses to will saves)? Perception? Clerical power? Let's break this apart. First of all, when I think of real world priests, I think of charisma rather than wisdom as the thing they're good at. And the problem with saying that priests are particularly wise because they have access to spiritual knowledge is that... well... there are tons of different religions... some are good, some are neutral, some are evil. They can't *all* have made the wisest decisions about life because they believe contradictory things.

But they're all charismatic. It really doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're charismatic enough to get people to follow along and believe it too.

So, charisma seems like the stat that clerics should have, not wisdom. And if clerics don't need wisdom, then nobody does.

But wait, what about "force of will"? That's something that's also often a part of the description of charisma. So, charisma would grant bonuses to will saves. And that has the extra effect of not having a useless stat (charisma) that nobody puts any points into (apart from people who use it for class abilities).

But wait, what about perception? That's certainly not charisma! So, okay, we need a new stat. We can call it Perception. (There was a Dragon magazine article way back before 3.0 that suggested such a thing.)

And then, any class ability that uses wisdom in the "perception" sense would use the Perception ability score (such as Monks using wisdom for AC would instead use Perception) while any class using wisdom for "force of will" or magic-based effects would instead use charisma.

But wait, what about using wisdom to represent your character being able to choose the right or wrong actions in certain situations? Oh, wait, that's always the player's choice anyway!




Spells would be given more attention than mundane combat


It's clear that in 3.0, they went to a lot of effort to make mundane combat work the way they wanted, with AoOs, trip rules, grapple rules, etc. But then they seem to have just thrown in spells without thinking about how they'd affect game balance. In my version of the game, every spell would be thought about thoroughly; every possibly game-changing effect would be integrated into the system.

For example, polymorph self (which might be broken into a variety of spells ala Pathfinder) would be something that we would assume might be in every battle. Every set of monster stats would have a mini-statblock showing what abilities you would get for turning into a particular creature. And it goes without saying that polymorph self would have to be nerfed to keep it balanced but it would never be ignored the way that the 3.0 designers seemed to have done.


There would be fewer (and smaller) bonuses

In 3.0, there are way too many bonuses all of which can stack. You can have competence, armor, natural armor, insight, etc etc etc. This would be toned down drastically. For example, I'd have armor and natural armor be considered the same kind of bonus, for example. Most monsters will be using one or the other; only PCs are likely to have both, so that only really nerfs PCs.

Also, there would never be spells that grant a +20 bonus to a skill. Instead, skill-monkeys (rogues, bards, etc) might have abilities that grant them significant (but not +20!) bonuses, so that the skill-monkeys would be the best at what they do. (Of course, a lot of skills are still made completely pointless by spells, but there would never be a spell or potion of Glibness making a rogue who specialized in Bluff feel worthless without it.)

And I'd probably get rid of most generic "here have a bonus" magic items and spells. Cloaks of resistance? They are boring fluff-less monstrosities that badly alter game balance, so they would be gone. Spells that give stat bonuses? Gone. They just add extra arithmetic; let's readjust CRs so that we don't have to assume super-buffed characters.


Take away Tier One


No more Tier One characters. Every primary spellcaster would be divided up into certain categories of Tier Two (at best) spellcasters. Instead of wizards having access to every spell, there would be classes of wizards: Blaster wizards, Battlefield Control wizards, Shifter/Master of Many Forms wizards, Buffing wizards (though maybe not), Divination wizards (who would usually be NPCs, thus forcing PCs to go searching for an oracle rather than just asking their wizard some questions), and so forth. If I did include a "generalist" wizard, he would be incredibly weak, not having access to the highest level spells and being several spell levels behind a specialist wizard. And all these classes would be designed with an eye to balance; it wouldn't just be a "you get all the Transmutation spells while the Diviner gets all the Divination spells" sort of thing. Perhaps Diviners get to foresee the future enough to be useful in combat by dodging attacks and seeing where to strike?

There would be similar clerical roles. Possibly they would be specific to deities (or deity types).

No Vancian Magic
If I did include Vancian magic it would be as a footnote in the appendix to the apocrypha, as an optional rule. Instead, spellcasters would be able to cast any spell they know as many times as they like. Naturally, spells would have to be rebalanced with this in mind. Perhaps magic missile never does more than d4+1 damage no matter how high level you are?

The closest to Vancian magic I would allow involves wizards re-studying which five (or however many) spells they know at the moment. So, if a wizard studied magic missile, charm person, web, invisibility, and fly, he could cast each of those spells as many times a day as he wanted. But then when he realized that charm person was useless against the undead that he's fighting, he could go home and forget charm person and study something else in its place. But I'm not in love with that idea. I'd rather spells just be "super powers" you can use as much as you want.

In addition to losing Vancian magic, there would be absolutely *no* abilities that are "once a day" or "twice an encounter" or anything like that. If you can do something, you can do it. There could be other limitations (like this ability can be used only if you have at least 50% of your max hit points) but it's silly not to be able to swing your sword the same way twice in a row.


No Paladins

Hmmm... holy men who wear armor, wield the weapons their deities allow, and cast divine spells? That's a standard D&D cleric, possibly multi-classed with fighter. Or fighter multi-classed with cleric. Either way. You can call yourself a paladin if you want...

Fighter1000
2013-04-02, 12:32 PM
Those ideas you have for the next edition of D&D are brilliant!
They use a lot more common sense and I think that it will make the game more convenient, easy, and fun to play.
Sometimes I think they made D&D 3.5 unnecessarily complicated and therefore clunky.
These rule changes would help a great deal.
I have been working on homebrew systems that try to "clean up" a lot of D&D 3.5's problems. But, even with a rules system that better fits my play-style, D&D 3.5 is still the first tabletop roleplaying game I ever played. It is what got me into the hobby in the first place. And for that, I can't forsake D&D 3.5 altogether.

Deffers
2013-04-02, 12:45 PM
The only real change you posted that I disagree with is charisma equals willpower. The wizard that has a terrible way with words but a will of solid iron is a good example of how it could hinder character concepts. Maybe you are OK with your character being socially crappy, but not feeble-willed.

TheDarkSaint
2013-04-02, 01:37 PM
Wisdom

The power to make good life choices.

Do you plan ahead for retirement? Wisdom

Do you trust the right people? Wisdom

Are you impulsive and tend to take bad risks? Low wisdom

Hothead that shoots his mouth off? Low wisdom and charisma

High self esteem? wisdom (note, not arrogance. good understanding of self and that your actions have consequence and worth)

Good judge of character? Wisdom

Understanding of the metaphysical world? Wisdom

At least, that's how I describe wisdom to my players when they are new to the game.


I've always enjoyed low magic games where magic was something to be treasured and marveled at. Getting a scroll was a big deal to my players because spells were pretty rare. Defeating the Big Bad and getting his spell book was a big quest. So, when you describe everyone having 'at will' magic and powers....it takes a bit of the sparkle out of magic for me. My PC's can't abuse the magic system because I don't allow them to have whatever they want, much like small children and candy.

Yora
2013-04-02, 01:45 PM
I would start with 2nd Edition and streamline it to the d20 concept.

Or pretty much 95% the same thing that Myth & Magic is.


Alternativly, a blend of Pathfinder and Star Wars Saga.

navar100
2013-04-02, 01:53 PM
Arcane Magic uses 3.5 Expanded Psionics System

Divine Magic uses the Vancian System, keeping spontaneous Cures and Summons, with Pathfinder's Channel Energy feature, Domains, Mysteries, and Wild Shape. Spells are divided into 2E-like Spheres, each equal in number of spells and comparable power as possible. Deity/faith determines sphere access.

Combat uses the 3E Tome of Battle System with archery support, more shield use options, and fix the stance progression. Desert Wind allows for all energy types. Stone Dragon need not touch the ground and can move. All warriors get full BAB and best HD.

Pathfinder skill system, all classes get minimum 4 + Int skill points per level.

Pathfinder feat progression.

Tweak the details as necessary and suit to taste.

Lupus753
2013-04-02, 01:57 PM
Stats Would Be Only Bonuses: Would, say, a Barbarian player be able to reduce their DEX, INT, and CHA to -1 in order to buff their STR and CON even further?

No Tier One: I'm all for this, but I think removing Vancian and giving more attention to spells already does the job.

No Vancian Magic: I'm doing something similar for Pathfinder, where every spellcaster knows as many spells as the Sorcerer. Partly for game balance, partly because the Sorcerer, despite being weaker, sounds much more fun to play. This also makes me realize that my homebrew has plenty of abilities that say, "You can do this a number of times per day equal to your [important stat]". But I have nothing against that.

@TheDarkSaint: Funnily enough, I prefer the opposite approach, where magic is like science. Everyone knows at least a little of it, but only a few take the time to study all of its intricacies.

For me, change the setting and Legend seems to be coming along as a fine D&D 5E.

JackRackham
2013-04-02, 03:26 PM
If I were to design the next iteration of d&d it would look a lot like GURPS, but with simplified combat, broader skills, more health and a lot more pregenerated - and optional - monsters, race templates, class templates, vehicles, magic items, and campaign settings.

So, your entire character would be point-buy and everything would have a point value attached to it. Level-ups would give a certain amount of points to spend. And everything, including magic and melee weapons, would be a skill. Your attributes would determine your proficiency with given skills, and you would train them to attribute +/- X. Attributes would, of course, determine your physical characteristics, like hp and resistances (as in GURPS).

And you could select a number of feats (called something else in GURPS, but I don't remember what), that would act as enhancements and sometimes prerequisites for certain skills (magic, for example).

Draz74
2013-04-02, 05:09 PM
What do you mean, "if"? :smalltongue:

I have, in fact, been working on such a spin-off system for years. It's getting close to being playable. :smallsmile: ("Close" is a purposefully vague term. A rules-heavy RPG is a very slow-moving project for 1-3 people, working on it in their free time.)

Here's some of what it looks like:

Abolishing the Traditional Ability Scores Entirely
This wasn't one of my plans for the system initially. (And I think it will be one of the less popular aspects of my system once I make it public.) But I tried dozens of configurations of ability scores, ranging from 3-8 different abilities, and I was never really satisfied with the verisimilitude and balance of any of them. I just kept coming up with cases like Deffers' comment above, where they didn't really make sense.

So I decided ... that there's really not much need for ability scores at all.

Specifically, I realized at some point, when I was trying to figure out what the "Charisma" ability score really represented, that "leadership" was really something that should be more of a Skill than a general-aptitude area that influenced a number of other die rolls. But then, why stop there? Why have a mechanical distinction at all between inborn bonuses/penalties (ability scores) and learned bonuses/penalties (Skills)? I decided to experiment with giving up ability scores ... and the result ended up feeling much more elegant, so I kept it.

So, things that would have used the Strength ability score are mostly absorbed into the Brawn skill. Things that would have used the Wisdom ability score are mostly absorbed into the Perception skill.

Sometimes, I realized that ability scores already kinda did the same things as saves, so even Skills to replace them were unnecessary. Things that would have used the Constitution ability score are mostly absorbed into Fortitude saves. The Dexterity ability score, in cases where it mostly represents reaction speeds (e.g. initiative), is absorbed into Reflex saves.

There is a Dexterity Skill, but it deals specifically with fine motor control tasks like picking pockets, not the other myriad of things that Dexterity covers in D&D. The Knowledge Skill covers the aspects of Intelligence that were related to knowing stuff. The Charisma Skill covers personal presence and leadership abilities, while the Glibness Skill covers short-term likability and persuasive abilities. (Neither of these covers physical appearance. Physical appearance has no mechanical effect unless someone is really good-looking or ugly, which are represented by special abilities.)

Athletics, Gadgetry, Nature, and Stealth are the other skills, more or less independent of the traditional six ability scores.

To cover cases where the traditional ability scores really should have an effect on other mechanics (like a strong character doing more damage when it whacks with a melee weapon), the game still has Synergy Bonuses, where having a strong amount of ranks in a skill can provide a small but precious bonus to another statistic of the character.

(Mostly) Abolish Situational and Temporary Modifiers
In my experience, one of the things that makes D&D less popular than it could be is how slowly it plays, especially during combat (in spite of how combat is many players' favorite part). It's discouraging when you finally track down your whole playgroup, force them to reorganize their schedules and commit to getting together, play for three hours one evening ... and the story of your campaign barely advanced. And it's even more discouraging when you spent most of that three hours sitting around, waiting for your turn in the initiative order to roll around.

In my experience, one of the things that slows down D&D the most is keeping track of die modifiers that aren't on your character sheet (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0034.html). So I got rid of them.

Not completely, I suppose. Things like flanking, shooting at long range, improvised weapons, or being significantly wounded still impose die modifiers. But re-writing hundreds of racial abilities, class features, and spells to avoid temporary or situational bonuses is still a huge part of the process of writing my system, to say the least.

D&DNext has an interesting approach to this problem, with the "Concentration" rule essentially limiting the game to one temporary die roll bonus per PC. But at the risk of repeating myself, why stop there? :smallsmile:

SWSE managed to avoid a lot of situational modifiers thru rerolls. For example, instead of giving elves a save bonus vs. enchantment spells, SWSE might have elves roll their save twice vs. enchantment and take the better result. (Essentially, it was an early form of the D&DNext "Advantage" mechanic, except it wasn't supposed to replace all circumstance modifiers, and therefore didn't have the stacking-related issues of Advantage.) Tome of Battle introduced a different approach: Moment of Perfect Mind lets you replace a Will Save with a Concentration Check. This ends up being a lot more elegant, IMO, than if the maneuver merely granted a one-time bonus to a Will Save, which would be another fiddly die modifier to remember.

I use both of these strategies extensively.

Giving Skills Proper Respect
"Warrior, Rogue, and Mage" -- the three broad concepts that collectively encompass most (or all) archetypes of heroic fantasy. One of them has occupied way more than its fair share of pages in D&D rulebooks. Another one has at least started to kind of catch up. The third is mostly given lesser versions of the other concepts' abilities (Sneak Attack? Arcane Dilettante?), or is left out in the cold, at least in rules-heavy RPGs.

How to fix this? Well, that's an issue I feel like I'm still working on, to an extent. But for a start ...

People seem to value Skill Mastery in 3e. The ability to never roll horribly on a skill check is a good mechanic for demonstrating "mastery" of a skill. And the positive reception of the Savvy Rogue feat seems to indicate that perhaps the number 10 isn't all that special in the "taking 10" mechanic. So in my system, there's a new statistic: the Rogue's answer to the Warrior's "Initiator Level" or "BAB" or the Mage's "Caster Level," the minimum effective die result a character ends up with when she does the equivalent of "taking 10." And at high levels, this statistic can definitely get higher than 10.

Besides making skillmonkeys feel more like a fundamental part of the game, this mechanic has at least two other major advantages. (1) If it's assumed that most Skill Checks made by people in normal life are made using this rule, it improves the game's simulationism a great deal, mitigating the large spread that's inherent in the d20. The chess grandmaster is much less likely to lose a chess match against the novice, by silly RAW, if the lowest number the grandmaster can roll on his check is 8 rather than 1! (2) With the abolition of ability scores, this new statistic, called "Coast Number," can replace the aspect of the Intelligence ability score that basically represented "thinking fast under pressure."

You may have noticed the system has only 10 Skills in it. So another thing I'm building into the system from the ground up is skill tricks (which really always should have been a thing in 3e ... Track, Trapfinding, Hide in Plain Sight, anyone?). So a skill like "Athletics" can cover climbing, jumping, swimming, Houdini-escapes, gymnastics, sprinting, aerial maneuvers, and an awesome dodge while moving past an enemy, if there are Skill Tricks that define each of those. (Most of them can still be attempted without the relevant skill trick, mind you. Anyone can jump; anyone can attempt to climb or swim; but screwing up catastrophically is a lot less likely with a bit of specialized training.)

Embracing E6 Principles
There are plenty of threads that mention the virtues of E6, or even make that the entire thread topic. So I won't go into detail on that. TL;DR: it keeps the number inflation of the game way down, makes classic monsters feel a lot scarier, gives clearer guidelines about what power level the game is really supposed to represent, and makes D&D look a lot more like most classic fantasy settings (i.e. from novels).

There's one major disadvantage: the system wasn't really designed for it. So a lot of cool non-broken stuff never comes into play, such as most PrC features. Not without a bunch of homebrew, that is.

So I'm building the whole game around it. Although I actually ended up increasing it to 8 levels of normal progression instead of 6. The specific reasons for this are lost in the distant past of the project, but I ended up liking 8 better anyway.

Build Your Own Class, Call It Whatever You Want
Like E6, Generic Classes were a brilliant idea ... tacked on to a system that didn't really support them. So again, I'm building the system around them. In fact, after a lot of development, I finally decided to drop having a class chassis at all. It turned out that just individual "kits" could give the bonuses to Caster Level, Coast Number, etc., that were needed for a character to function.

It pre-empts a LOT of debates about "should the Swashbuckler/Ranger/Barbarian be separate classes, or just be aspects of the Fighter class." I can just answer those questions with, "Choose whatever abilities match your character concept, and I don't really care if you call it a Fighter or not."

Skill tricks and other minor abilities are "Talents." spells and other abilities that are used actively in combat are "Feats." Bundles of major and minor abilities that define an archetype are "Kits."

No Christmas Tree Effect
Magic items, other than things like consumables, only function in extraordinary ways if a character doesn't carry too many of them. Like, about 4 for high-level characters; slightly more if a character spends special abilities on them.

"+#" weapons and armor are another sacred cow that's turning into steak. Some powerful magic items will give a +1 to combat statistics. Mostly, though, magic items will grant situational or utilitarian abilities rather than straight-up combat power.

Only One "Daily" Resource
There's a very good reason for the game to include "daily" abilities: it's realistic. People get tired and need a good night's sleep in order to function at peak capacity again, after a hard day's work (or fighting).

But it doesn't make a lot of sense when the Paladin says "I'm not tired in general -- I've got lots of hit points and spells and other abilities remaining; but I can't Smite any more today. I'm out of those."

So there's only one "daily" resource in my system (other than possibly some magic items; daily recharge is kind of flavorful for those). And anything that needs some kind of daily limit (such as long overland marches, or resting to refresh HP or magical abilities) drains that resource. Mechanical unity.

However, the ways that this "daily" resource can be drained in combat are sharply limited. Hopefully this will pre-empt the "fifteen minute workday;" after one combat, PCs won't have had the opportunity to drain most or all of their daily "Reserve Points," even if they're spellcasters, so there's no motivation for the party to quit adventuring and sit on their butts for 15.75 hours just so they can go back to sleep for another 8 hours.

Magic Overhaul
Rituals were a great idea in 4e. One of the ways magic can still feel special, without making any characters into "Tier 1," is to divide it into a few effects that are quick enough to function powerfully in combat, and a whole bunch of effects that are too slow, too expensive, or too utilitarian to be part of a mage's combat repertoire.

Just break the 4e paradigm by making most of the Rituals that adventurers use on a routine basis either quick but expensive (such as Knock), or slow but free or cheap (such as Unseen Servant).

As far as in-combat magic goes ... base it mostly on the 3.5e psionics system. But to make casters (especially blasters) a little more thematic, make it so a spell has to be cast using a "seed" that fits its theme, such as Fire, Shadow, or Luck. By tweaking each spell in different ways depending what seed is used to cast it, a great variety of magical effects are possible with relatively little bloat in the magic rules. (Still more than I'd like, but eh.)

And of course, a mage's spell selection, since it comes through Feat selection, is directly in competition with that character's other build resources. On the other hand, Magic Points are recoverable on a per-encounter basis, so casters get to cast a lot; but Magic Points per encounter are pretty limited, so "novas" aren't really possible. Also, powerful buffs (like all-day flight) or some magic items steal some of the Magic Points from a mage's pool.

Vitality/Injury System
Instead of standard Hit Points, use a mechanic that's vaguely based on SWSE, with a hint of M&M thrown in. Short-term fatigue, morale, and superficial injuries are represented by Vitality Points. More serious damage is represented by a condition track (Wounded, Dying, Dropped), which are significant (but low-bookkeeping) penalties to a character who wishes to continue fighting.

Attacks are much more harmful, regardless of whether you save against them, if they manage to beat your Damage Threshold, which in this system is called your Armor Value. And, as you probably guessed, the main function of Armor is to increase this threshold, which makes a lot more sense than armor making you hard to hit in the first place.

As implied above, the target of an attack always gets a Save in this system, even if the attack is a mundane whack with a sharp object. No "attack rolls." Saves were usually more exciting to roll than attack rolls. 4e had the right idea about unifying normal attacks and spells to use the same process, but they took it in the wrong direction, making the attacker roll for everything.

Fortitude Save still exists, and is used to deal with poisons, diseases, and so forth, as well as how fast you lose Reserve Points if you're engaged in activities like climbing or swimming long distances. Reflex Save still exists, and is used for initiative, as well as things like not falling into pit traps, choosing which side of a magically-created Wall of Force you end up on, or avoiding a medusa's gaze. It is not generally used to survive area-of-effect energy damage. Will Save still exists, although it's renamed Willpower; in addition to being the most common save vs. various curse-type spells, and the enchantment-type effects you'd expect, it also makes spellcasters able to recharge their magic with less loss of Reserve Points. A fourth save, Defense, takes over the role of avoiding spear thrusts or arrows or Fireballs; using a shield is highly conducive to obtaining a good Defense Save. (A fifth type of save exists, but is much rarer: It's for inanimate objects to avoid being broken.)

Critical hits, instead of inflicting extra damage, can do things like knock people over or push them around the battlefield or (most commonly) knock the wind out of them for one turn, even if the attacker doesn't have any special abilities like Improved Trip or Awesome Blow.

Psionic Focus: Reloaded
When possible, if a special combat ability isn't a spell, I try to write it to be situational enough that a character can't just spam it constantly (boring!). When that fails, I came up with a different cost to limit special abilities to a pseudo-per-encounter-but-rechargeable metric.

Basically, using these abilities requires something akin to 3.5e psionic focus, except it's harder to obtain reliably, and since it's not used only for psionic abilities (or even magical abilities), it's renamed Momentum.

So things like the Paladin's Smite or a Stunning Fist attack use up your momentum (sometimes only if they succeed, since spending your momentum only to have the dice rob you sucks). Other abilities just require you to have momentum, e.g. Blind-Fight, which lets you ignore a target's Concealment as long as you have momentum.

It's amusing how many buff spells from 3e can be converted into this system by turning them into some variation of the spell that simply gives the target momentum.

No Iterative Attacks!
Full attacks are a relic of an older fashion, where Gary Gygax just couldn't apparently think of anything else that Fighters should be able to do at high levels to stay awesome. But they multiplied the amount of time that the party warrior's turn takes during combat, and in 3e they usually miss anyway. And their positive effects, such as they are, could just be replicated by giving warriors a scaling damage bonus anyway.

So in my system, it's very rare for a character to gain more than one attack per turn, unless he uses a Feat that allows a second attack as a swift action. (Those are relatively common, but with some kind of special requirements.) Like Tome of Battle, this keeps combat from staying so ... stationary. It's also another tasty morsel of beef-that-used-to-be-sacred-cow.

Don't Get Too Setting-Specific
While D&D is supposed to support a wide variety of fantasy settings, in practice it usually goes way too far into defining things that should vary from world to world. Most notably, monsters -- outside of a few very generic breeds -- should be very different from setting to setting, IMO. There should be absolutely nothing wrong with a setting saying, "This world just doesn't have Undead," and having the game still function with minimal modification.

Races are almost as bad as monsters in this regard. Elves should be free to be very different from world to world.

I'm not sure I have any concrete examples of how this belief has molded the rules of my system, since I still present stats for races and monsters from "generic fantasy world" as examples of what might be. But I like to think that, since this has been in the back of my mind all along, creating new settings and making them distinctive will be a pretty easy process of modifying a few Kits/abilities and banning a few others.

Alignment ... Who Needs Two Axes? I'll Take Half An Axis.
Mechanical alignment effects are mostly gone. Fiends, undead, black magic, Desecrated locations and (depending on the setting) possibly other sources (e.g. Fey, Slaad, priests of certain deities, or cannibals) are targetable by certain abilities that are similar to old abilities such as Detect Evil, Smite Evil, Turn Undead, etc.

The other side of this card is that characters who spend too long in evil-tainted dungeons may find their noble spirits gradually decaying ...

On a tangentially related side note, Fear is no longer mostly governed by Will Saves. The most common effect of fear is actually Vitality Damage, which helps to make hardy warriors feel "braver" than spindly wizards.

Streamline Via Abstraction, e.g. Wealth System
Another process in D&D that takes way more time than it should, since it's really not that fun, is treasure bookeeping. "OK, how many of our gp are still tied up in those rubies we bought to make them more portable? How many of those can the local moneychanger in this town liquidate? Gurbon, are you carrying them all, or did you give some of them to Rexmuck before he fell into that volcano? What percentage of this latest treasure haul are we putting into the whole-party fund, vs. how much are we dividing up to spend individually?"

Yeah, no thanks. Instead, I'm embracing the chaos of medieval markets (inconsistent distribution! bartering! inconsistent and varied currency systems!) and using them as an excuse to build something akin to d20 Modern Wealth into the game. Now, when you want to buy a farm (that might have treasure buried in it), you roll a number of d6 equal to your Wealth Score, and compare the number of "successes" you roll to the farm's Price rating ... and find out whether it's a trivial purchase, or whether it will reduce your Wealth Score by Xd6 going forward, or whether it's completely beyond your ability to purchase.

I'm always on the lookout for more areas of the game that I can streamline with abstractions like this, as long as it doesn't take away one of the parts of the game that people actually enjoy (I don't want to abstract combat down to just a couple of rolls like Burning Wheel) or break my suspension of disbelief (I don't want to just say "anyone can carry as much equipment as they want; no encumbrance rules").

Looking Ahead
These are things that I haven't made a lot of progress with yet, but that I'm hoping to implement eventually:

Zone Combat
A lot of time in 3e/4e D&D is spent just worrying about the combat grid. Exact positioning. Maps and grids. Calculating distances of attacks or shapes of burst effects with different radii.

I'm tired of that stuff. It makes PbP a lot harder. It is a festering wound in the gut of "theater of the mind." It makes flight a DM nightmare.

But just returning to "theater of the mind" a la D&DNext seems unsatisfying. At least the grid gave warriors the ability to guard their allies, gave Rogues the ability to benefit from their warrior allies' teamwork, gave mages a purpose for their classic battlefield control spells.

So I want to redefine combat geography as a "zone" system, kinda like Old School Hack does. Then, move actions can still be used to set up tactical advantages like flanking or guarding, but in the abstract rather than by counting individual squares.

Social Skills
I want to turn social skill checks into a mini-game that augments, rather than replaces, actual roleplayed conversations. The basic idea is that the target of a social skill check gets to choose (based on how the conversation is presented to him) what method he wants to use to counteroffer/oppose/take advantage of the check that is made against him.

Originally, the idea for this came from the Duel of Wills system in Tome of Battle, where the target of an Intimidation check gets to choose whether to make a Will Save to ignore the effect, or an opposed Intimidation Check to turn it back on its source. I'd like a whole system for interaction based on choices like that.

Whew. I'll probably think of some other important system elements that I left out, but ... hopefully that's enough to make some readers say, "Awesome!"

Anderlith
2013-04-02, 05:44 PM
The only way I could improve it meaningfully is to scrap the whole thing.

Merge Starwars Saga & Pathfinder, add in a few new stats
Prowess: How good you are at hitting things
Perception: How good you are a noticing things

Get rid of the three saves, just do Ability checks.

Cut off the top end of spellcasting

Lupus753
2013-04-02, 06:17 PM
Does nobody else think that Legend is a good DnD-esque RPG. Well, after waiting for it to finish, I mean.

Draz74
2013-04-02, 06:46 PM
Does nobody else think that Legend is a good DnD-esque RPG. Well, after waiting for it to finish, I mean.

Oh, I love Legend. But for me, it's more wuxia-fantasy rather than heroic fantasy. Great for melodramatic action, not so great for verisimilitude or old-fashioned dungeon crawling. (Also still more bookkeeping in some areas than I would prefer, but I suppose it makes up for that with streamlining in other areas.)

Hiro Protagonest
2013-04-02, 06:52 PM
I'd sell the brand to Kenzer & Co and tell them to rename Hackmaster.

Dienekes
2013-04-02, 07:41 PM
Yeah I'm with those who take inspiration from SWSE.

For the system I'm writing, I have this.
5 classes: Rogue, Warrior, Ranger, Scholar, Noble.
Action Points replace Force Points
I've also replaced ability scores with just the modifiers.
In order to cast spells you need to have the Magic Training feat as well as be trained in the Thaumaturgy skill, which is Charisma based.
When you take the Magic Training feat you get to choose Arcane or Divine, which determines how many spell slots you can cast per encounter. Arcane allows you to cast 1+Int modifier, Divine allows you to cast 1+Wis modifier.

Every spell is a feat. Many of the low level spells also have an at-will component, which do not take up one of the spell slots when used.

Every spell school has roughly 10 spells that have prerequisites much like the maneuvers from Tome of Battle, where you need a certain amount of lower level spells to reach the higher level ones. A scholar has enough feats that allow it to fill out 2 full spell-schools if they do not use their feats for anything else, while every other class can fill out 1 if they choose to have a hand in casting. Or they can choose to be a generic caster but then they probably will not gain the higher level spells.

Like Saga spells scale hopefully to be useful throughout the run since most characters are going to only have a few. But upper level spells add utility or effects.

Some of the really powerful game changing spells are rituals, which cannot be cast in combat. For the real powerful world changers like creating an army of undead, directly speaking to a god, or teleporting across worlds or whatever can require an entire adventure to get the materials. Those rituals are generally best left to NPCs and villains but if the player wants to go for it, they can.

For example, from the Elementalist school instead of having fireball, lesser fireball, greater fireball, and so on. There is Flame Strike, which targets one person, and Fireball which targets an area. Flame Strike, though a lower level spell, will for the same Thaumaturgy roll always deal more damage to a single target than the Fireball, but the Fireball will hit more targets. From the same school there are combat spells like Cone of Cold, Gust of Wind, Elemental Weapons, Quake and so on. Then there are basic rituals like Wind Walk, Control Water, or Shape Stone. Then there are the huge rituals like Control Weather which can give the always winter Narnia effect if you're so inclined.

Some schools like Necromancy or Transmutation have Raise Dead or Transform spells which can be taken more than once but each time cover a different type of individual undead or creature that the mage can transform into.

By the same token, every character gets Prowess Points, scholars start at 1, warriors at 5, which can be used to funnel different abilities on their attacks. The various maneuvers and stances have a range of costs from 0 PP to 5. Each such ability is a feat. There will be a mix of melee, ranged, and cavalry maneuvers. Warriors have various talents that allow them to use these abilities better than other classes. These points can be refreshed by taking a swift action and a standard action to refocus. Or various talents allow alternative methods of refocusing from making a Perception check to making a standard attack without any attached maneuvers.

Condition Track is a thing, but I'm making sure that what lowers the Condition Track on a successful hit does not stack. Being very low on the Condition Track lowers your maximum Prowess Points as well as your spell slots.

Instead of prestige classes basically being base class part 2, the base classes will access Advanced Talents at level 10, prestige classes are for archetypes that do not exactly fit in the above classes, or are a mix of classes. For example the Mage Knight/Paladin focuses on mixing martial and spells and gets abilities more focuses in that regard for making it less suicidal to cast spells in a melee.

Skill lists are changed a bit and the scaling problems from saga are fixed.
Now the scaling goes, untrained skill= 1/2 level + ability.
Trained= level + ability
Skill Focus= level + ability + 1/2 level (max of +5)

Skills are given a few more methods of being useful in and out of combat, and further than that the Rogue, Ranger, and Noble classes have a lot of talents that even further grant uses to skills. With Rogue being the in-disputed kings of skills, Rangers focusing more on physical skills, and Nobles more on social.

Shields grant a bonus to Reflex Defense
Armor grants DR, which becomes incredibly useful with the Condition Track.
Weapons each have various different attributes to distinguish them, such as Cavalry, Basket Hilt, Armor Penetration, to weird ones like Bouncing for throwing axes.

Alignment is gone, replaced with the Mutants and Mastermind style complications and loyalties.

Flaws are still in, but they're altered to be actual flaws instead of an easily gamed system to increase optimization. For instance instead of taking things irrelevant to your character they're pretty big problems with both a mechanical and roleplaying aspect. Instead of crap like noncombatant or murky-eyed there will be things like Alcoholic, Blind, Deaf, Deformed, Reviled and so on.

The rest is all just trying to make sure the available talents are roughly balanced and interesting.

SimonMoon6
2013-04-02, 10:35 PM
What do you mean, "if"? :smalltongue:

I have, in fact, been working on such a spin-off system for years.

I like much of what I see here.

Ninjadeadbeard
2013-04-02, 10:57 PM
Everything from Iron Heroes except the magic system.

Wounds and Vitality
All characters have hit points equal to their Con score, and the normal way of generating hp now generates Vitality Points, which serve as a hero shield. Normal damage is taken out of the VP of a character, representing near-misses and glancing blows that didn't really connect but still "frazzled" the character enough to drain their stamina. Damage beyond VP is taken out of HP, representing an exhausted character not being able to make that sword stroke miss him. Critical hits do damage straight to HP, because sometimes a lucky shot is all that's necessary.

This perfectly preserves Mortality at higher levels, since even a Commoner with the luckiest luck that ever lucked can still take down an epic hero. My players practically refuse to use the normal HP rules now.

Magic Overhaul
No Arcane or Divine Magic. Just three Base classes:

Binder: As is, but let's add some Summoning power! Get the Demon Worshipping, Cthulhu summoning, and Divine Aid seeking archetypes down pat.

Mana-Caster: Spellpoints based, obviously. Basically the Psionic Wilder. But refluffed as Mana, and done with all new spell lists.

Truenamer: Come on! The best fluff in D&D, bar none. And we got this piece of dragon poodoo? Need a better one.

And finally, don't let Spells defeat entire class features. Spells should be like Skills: Exceedingly useful if used right, devastating, in fact. But not individually more powerful than an entire class.

Grapple rules. Just...grapple rules.

Two-Weapon Fighting needs an overhaul, or at least to be made worth taking. Same with Unarmed.

Anderlith
2013-04-02, 11:57 PM
Yeah I'm with those who take inspiration from SWSE.

For the system I'm writing, I have this.
5 classes: Rogue, Warrior, Ranger, Scholar, Noble.
Action Points replace Force Points
I've also replaced ability scores with just the modifiers.
In order to cast spells you need to have the Magic Training feat as well as be trained in the Thaumaturgy skill, which is Charisma based.
When you take the Magic Training feat you get to choose Arcane or Divine, which determines how many spell slots you can cast per encounter. Arcane allows you to cast 1+Int modifier, Divine allows you to cast 1+Wis modifier.

Every spell is a feat. Many of the low level spells also have an at-will component, which do not take up one of the spell slots when used.

Every spell school has roughly 10 spells that have prerequisites much like the maneuvers from Tome of Battle, where you need a certain amount of lower level spells to reach the higher level ones. A scholar has enough feats that allow it to fill out 2 full spell-schools if they do not use their feats for anything else, while every other class can fill out 1 if they choose to have a hand in casting. Or they can choose to be a generic caster but then they probably will not gain the higher level spells.

Like Saga spells scale hopefully to be useful throughout the run since most characters are going to only have a few. But upper level spells add utility or effects.

Some of the really powerful game changing spells are rituals, which cannot be cast in combat. For the real powerful world changers like creating an army of undead, directly speaking to a god, or teleporting across worlds or whatever can require an entire adventure to get the materials. Those rituals are generally best left to NPCs and villains but if the player wants to go for it, they can.

For example, from the Elementalist school instead of having fireball, lesser fireball, greater fireball, and so on. There is Flame Strike, which targets one person, and Fireball which targets an area. Flame Strike, though a lower level spell, will for the same Thaumaturgy roll always deal more damage to a single target than the Fireball, but the Fireball will hit more targets. From the same school there are combat spells like Cone of Cold, Gust of Wind, Elemental Weapons, Quake and so on. Then there are basic rituals like Wind Walk, Control Water, or Shape Stone. Then there are the huge rituals like Control Weather which can give the always winter Narnia effect if you're so inclined.

Some schools like Necromancy or Transmutation have Raise Dead or Transform spells which can be taken more than once but each time cover a different type of individual undead or creature that the mage can transform into.

By the same token, every character gets Prowess Points, scholars start at 1, warriors at 5, which can be used to funnel different abilities on their attacks. The various maneuvers and stances have a range of costs from 0 PP to 5. Each such ability is a feat. There will be a mix of melee, ranged, and cavalry maneuvers. Warriors have various talents that allow them to use these abilities better than other classes. These points can be refreshed by taking a swift action and a standard action to refocus. Or various talents allow alternative methods of refocusing from making a Perception check to making a standard attack without any attached maneuvers.

Condition Track is a thing, but I'm making sure that what lowers the Condition Track on a successful hit does not stack. Being very low on the Condition Track lowers your maximum Prowess Points as well as your spell slots.

Instead of prestige classes basically being base class part 2, the base classes will access Advanced Talents at level 10, prestige classes are for archetypes that do not exactly fit in the above classes, or are a mix of classes. For example the Mage Knight/Paladin focuses on mixing martial and spells and gets abilities more focuses in that regard for making it less suicidal to cast spells in a melee.

Skill lists are changed a bit and the scaling problems from saga are fixed.
Now the scaling goes, untrained skill= 1/2 level + ability.
Trained= level + ability
Skill Focus= level + ability + 1/2 level (max of +5)

Skills are given a few more methods of being useful in and out of combat, and further than that the Rogue, Ranger, and Noble classes have a lot of talents that even further grant uses to skills. With Rogue being the in-disputed kings of skills, Rangers focusing more on physical skills, and Nobles more on social.

Shields grant a bonus to Reflex Defense
Armor grants DR, which becomes incredibly useful with the Condition Track.
Weapons each have various different attributes to distinguish them, such as Cavalry, Basket Hilt, Armor Penetration, to weird ones like Bouncing for throwing axes.

Alignment is gone, replaced with the Mutants and Mastermind style complications and loyalties.

Flaws are still in, but they're altered to be actual flaws instead of an easily gamed system to increase optimization. For instance instead of taking things irrelevant to your character they're pretty big problems with both a mechanical and roleplaying aspect. Instead of crap like noncombatant or murky-eyed there will be things like Alcoholic, Blind, Deaf, Deformed, Reviled and so on.

The rest is all just trying to make sure the available talents are roughly balanced and interesting.

I just want to say... Do you know what Thaumaturgy is? It's definitely not Cha based.

Dienekes
2013-04-03, 12:03 AM
The practice of miracle working. I'm basically using it as a generic channeling magic though, taking the name from Warrior Rogue Mage game. Also, the way I figure to influence your will upon magic or to beseech a god to do what you want takes a good deal of force of personality which is Charisma.

Totally Guy
2013-04-04, 03:04 AM
I'd add in a setting generator.

You'd collectively choose a die type and roll for each spell in the game. When the die rolls it's highest result the spell is included in the game. On the second highest number the spell can be researched but is otherwise unknown to the world. On any other number the spell is excluded. Choosing a D12 would be a low magic game, a D4 is for high magic.

The players including the GM would then look at the final list and have some limited ability to swap one included spell for another omitted one.

The players would talk about the social implications of their final spell list. Where would medieval society be changed by the presence of such spells? What kind of people would the spell casters be and how would society treat them? (The standard 3.5 spell list analysed in such a way is often cited as the Tippyverse.)

Man on Fire
2013-04-04, 06:20 AM
No more Tier 1 or Tier 2. No more Tier 4, 5 or 6 either. Everybody are Tier 3:

* Casters are of different types each for one school of magic or domain, they don't know other magic, aside from some bonuses. They're more akin to Dread Necromancer now.
** Clerics get one domain, wizards get one school of magic, each comes with predetermined list and alert some class features, for example, Necromancer level 20 turns into a lich, Druid is a cleric who gets nature-related domains and has alerted class features. You can either be prepared or spontaneous, deciding this for yourself.
* Martial classes get their own fighting techniques, similiat to ToB meanuvers. They get limited list, with little overlap. We have following martial classes: Swasbuckler (Basically Swordsage with bits of Rogue, with lesser maneuver choice - fast, light meele, sneaky), Knight (strong, heavy armored meele sorta like Crusader with PF Cavalier flavor), Warrior (Fighter-Warblade bastard son, somethnig between Knight and Swasbuckler).
* Some gish clases, like Magus, Ranger or Paladin ,that allows yo to combine, to limited extend meele and casting
* Barbarian and Aritificer are now their own, separate classed with special sets of abilities (Rage Powers and Inventions) that make them Tier 3.

No psionics or Orientalclasses, we're focused on more specific climatic setting, Oriental has it's own game, Legen of the Five Rings and Psionics should get their own.

Eldan
2013-04-04, 07:10 AM
Vancian magic needs to stay. In fact, it probably needs to be expanded and refined. Why?

Because it's interesting for many reasons. First of all, the fluff. Every game and their mother out there has magic or fatigue points of some kind. That's boring. It poses no challenges, no restrictions. You just cast whatever you want, then you run out, done.

Vancian gives casters limitations automatically, and it throws up a lot of interesting fluff. Magic is too complicated for a wizard to prepare in combat. . Instead, they go halfway through an incredibly complicated rituals, then keep all that maddeningly complex potential energy hanging in their minds until they release it. Awesome. And more than that. In many ways, it exemplarizes the wizards' intelligence and scholarly nature. They keep written records that are too complicated for others to even read without long study. They are forced into preparation, planning and forethought, instead of making spontaneous decisions. They need time to prepare. That all makes wizards interesting.

That is not to say wizards shouldn't be restricted. They should be restriced .And how. We need an across the board rewrite of all spells. No more easy threading on other classes' toes is the first one. Another I like is a kind of equal exchange. Big effects have big costs. A third one is specialization. Just as there are few, if any, people with quintuple PhDs in astrophysics, ecology, metallurgy, medicine and genetics out there, wizards will have their discipline. The broader you want it, the more your skil in each suffers. That simple. Forth, casting should be more difficult in combat. In 3.5, defensive casting and abjurations are too easy and common. Fifth, rituals. Embrace them. Heck, make them rare, dangerous and most of all, go back to the original meaning of the word arcane. Secret. Mysterious. Not entirely predictable.

Another thing I don't like many others seem to see as a virtue is E6. It's nice for some worlds. But D&D is not about "some worlds". D&D, to me, is about an incredible variety of worlds and situations. There's probably some system out there that's optimized for almost any kind of adventure you can think of. But D&D can be used for all of them, and be made to work with some efforts. If I want a game where demigods and peasants walk in the same world, and one can become the other, I look to D&D. E6 is a subsystem for people who prefer a certain playstyle, and I don't begrudge them that. But every so often, I like to bust out the awesome world-changing magic in my games. And D&D should accomodate all playstyles.

Other things I care about are fewer modifiers, killing the christmas tree, broader more versatile casters, more player choice in character building.

DigoDragon
2013-04-04, 07:36 AM
No Vancian Magic

I found the points system from Unearthed Arcana to be a nice alternate system if Vancian magic isn't the way to go. It reminds me of the original Final Fantasy spell system.


Something I liked that came later in 3.x D&D were things like in the Weapons of Legacy and bonded weapons where a weapon you had could also "level up" and grow stronger with you. I'd like to see that as class abilities for the warrior types. It's a nifty way of making one's equipment feel like its something special as opposed to just "this week's +2 sword".

SimonMoon6
2013-04-04, 10:08 AM
But D&D is not about "some worlds". D&D, to me, is about an incredible variety of worlds and situations. There's probably some system out there that's optimized for almost any kind of adventure you can think of. But D&D can be used for all of them, and be made to work with some efforts.

I have to admit I LOL-ed at this. Now, I don't know anything about E6 but the idea of D&D as a generic game-setting (especially while maintaining Vancian magic) is hilarious to me, especially since I once ran a multiversal campaign that had "generic D&D world" as one of the universes (without using D&D as the rules system) since the D&D rules are such a straightjacket to what a universe using those rules is like.

For example, Vancian magic's greatest feature is its uniqueness, but its greatest failing is its uniqueness. That is, it is so completely non-generic that if you like it, it's great and unlike anything else, but on the other hand, it so poorly represents any other sort of wizard from any other fictional universe in any fiction whatsoever in the entire universe of fiction (apart perhaps from the Vance source material). Gandalf is not a Vancian wizard (I'm not sure he's much of a wizard actually, but that's another matter), Merlin is not a Vancian wizard, Doctor Strange is not a Vancian wizard, Doctor Fate is not a Vancian wizard, Harry Potter is not a Vancian wizard, Zatanna is not a Vancian wizard, etc ad nauseum.

Whenever I think of a fictional wizard, I never think of a Vancian wizard unless I'm specifically thinking of a wizard from a D&D universe.

Eldan
2013-04-04, 10:20 AM
That's the entire point, though.
Most systems have one, maybe two ways to model magic. If you don't like Vancian to model a character in D&D, there's psionics (Fate, probably, I don't really know him, Farseers, Harry Dresden), Binding, Truenaming (Sparrowhawk), Shadowcasting, Warlocks (Harry Potter, though intelligence based) or Incarnum. And that's without dipping into homebrew for things like Spellshaping, Xenotheurgy, Gramarie, Rituals or one of a dozen others.

With some digging, you will find rules that fit your character. That is what I mean by D&D's strength. It's so incredibly big. I mean, go the other way. Try modelling Vancian in most other systems.

And still, with the exception of some that Sanderson has written, it's the most interesting magic system I know.

jindra34
2013-04-04, 11:16 AM
I'd start with the things I was keeping: Namely the class and level system, the prepared casting, and the stats (as horrible at representing people as they might be, and as hard as they might be to understand), because those things seem to be fundementally what DnD is. I'd probably split spellcasting stats over all three of the non-physical stats (Int being how high, and [new] how many different spells you could prepare, Wisdom being bonus spells/points [not sure what I'd use], and Charisma actually being saves.) I'd probably do away with SR as it existed in 3.5 but continue the concept as some sort of check that characters out of tune with magic could make to not be effected (and yes there would be NO SR:No spells), and probably make every spell require a successful something on the part of the caster or a failure on the part of the target to have any major effect. And then see how people respond and go from there.

Mighty_Chicken
2013-04-04, 12:55 PM
Wow Draz74. I like your theory a lot.

What you wants to do with Skill Tricks is what I'm trying to do with my houserules, too.

I've been reading the 5e playtest and their material is pretty solid. They fix many problems 3e always had, so I'm really thinking all my houserule fixes might not be necessary.

But two changes I'd do if I was going to write the 5e edition:

2d10 instead of 1d20 for some checks

Specifically for skills. Players are constantly mad about how they can't do trivial things with skills they're good at. This makes skills unrealiable, thus never a focus of character creation for non-skill monkeys.

I playtested 2d10 and it's really fun. I think it's superior than d20 for skills and it's something that would feel great for most groups.

With a d20, the chance of getting a 1 is the same chance of getting a 10. With 2d10, the chace of getting a 2 (the minimal result) is ten times lower than getting an 11. The same goes for getting a 20. This makes you need every ability bonus and skill rank point to get high results, but randomness is still present as high and low dice results are still there.

2d10 is much superior to 3d6 because 3d6 basically kills randomness.

2d10 doesn't work with D&D combat rules, at all.

2d10 for skills works fine for E6, and would work fine with current 5e rules because bonuses stack veeery slowly. 2d10 wouldn't be so elegant for high level 3e.


Spell Points and Tiring Magic

While I do believe that everyone would have a better time if they played with 2d10 instead of d20 for skills, my opinions about magic are very specific to the kind of fiction I like.

I'm not against magic being powerful, but I think it shouldn't be cheap.

So I'm crafting a house rule where casters spend Spell Points to cast. I'm trying to do this as a nerf instead of a buff, though. If the caster spends more than half his spell points, he becomes magically fatigued. He can't run, charg, etc, and also gets a -2 penalty to his two spellcasting abilities (did I mention I use 2 spellcasting abilities intead of one?). If he spends 3 quarters of his spell points, the penalties become -6 (that's a -3 to spell DCs and Concentration checks). This fatigue stacks with mundane fatigue.

But I'm also trying to create a fluff and mechanical system where you get some other disadvantage for using so much spell points, to represent that the magic gets harder to control the more you use it. So druids could get hairy or horned, getting penalties on Charisma checks; evokers could have a chance of accidentally putting things on fire, illusionists could get penalties on Spot/Listen checks, sorcerers could get unlucky, etc.

I don't like that a fighter that used all his resources - hit points - looks all bloody and messed up, but a wizard who spent all his resources looks all-OK (aside from being useless). Spells whould tire casters, make them suffer, or get sweaty, or dark, or any fluff you like. Players should be encouraged to craft their own list of penalties for getting magically exhausted.

peterpaulrubens
2013-04-04, 03:10 PM
I think a lot of systems could use some meta-game rules. Not rules themselves, but more like a Constitution of rules; what types of rules are allowed.

For example:
No Immunities. You can never make a rule that grants automatic immunity to an effect. You can have 1000 Fire resistance, but never "fire immunity". This keeps things on a linear scale rather than a binary (on/off) scale. That dragon with 1000 FR may be unharmed by any magic fire your players can generate, but he can't survive on the surface of the sun.

Nothing can replace the die roll.No effect shall dictate the outcome of the die roll; rules may add bonuses or penalties, but the die must always be rolled. The only exception is "Take 10" or similar effects where it is assumed the die was rolled enough timres to achieve the desired roll. This bans things like Surge of Fortune's "automatic natural 20" idiocy, but allows True Strike etc.


I'd also make sure, somehow, that swinging a sword was quicker and more reliable than casting a spell. That's how it was in 1st edition, and nobody ever argued that fighters were overshadowed by wizards.

Eldan
2013-04-04, 03:23 PM
Another thing that I think needs to change are the monster manuals.

Kick 3/4 of monsters. Then give each an entry of around four pages. Picture and statblock on the first page, the rest description. Background, society or behaviour, ecology, interesting bits about the anatomy...

If you can't do that, your monster isn't interesting enough, period.

Draz74
2013-04-04, 04:51 PM
I don't like that a fighter that used all his resources - hit points - looks all bloody and messed up, but a wizard who spent all his resources looks all-OK (aside from being useless). Spells whould tire casters, make them suffer, or get sweaty, or dark, or any fluff you like. Players should be encouraged to craft their own list of penalties for getting magically exhausted.

I thought about implementing magic rules like this, but it becomes very difficult to make a gish archetype playable.

WarlockLord
2013-04-04, 04:55 PM
Couple of ideas:

Races don't give stat adjustments
Sure, you can say your elves are wizards and your orcs are barbarians. But at the end of the day all this encourages is a little pile of boring stat adjustments. What you could do is something where each race gets some kind of racial power/ability: elves get accuracy, orcs get berserk, humans get an extra feat, etc, but no overall numeric bonuses.

Monsters are built similarly to PCs
All the monsters could have monster classes that you could take that didn't suck. So maybe succubus is a 20 level class but normal succubi have 9 levels. Alternatively, we can go with Frank Trollman's idea that you can trade magic item slots for racial powers (so you have a mind flayer's mind blast rather than a hat of mind blasting). Either way, the game will benefit if the monsters are designed to be played.

Draz74
2013-04-04, 05:00 PM
Races don't give stat adjustments
Sure, you can say your elves are wizards and your orcs are barbarians. But at the end of the day all this encourages is a little pile of boring stat adjustments. What you could do is something where each race gets some kind of racial power/ability: elves get accuracy, orcs get berserk, humans get an extra feat, etc, but no overall numeric bonuses.

Alternatively -- and I actually think this change would be a great idea for Next -- have classes grant bonuses to their key stats, and don't let those bonuses stack with racial bonuses.

So something like a Half-Orc Rogue is perfectly playable, because he can get Dexterity +2 just as easily as the Halfling Rogue can. (He gets it from his class; the Halfling gets it from race.) Racial selection becomes more a game of what kind of Rogue (or Wizard, or Cleric) you want to be playing. (A strong Rogue? An agile Wizard? A tough Wizard? An intelligent Paladin? ...)

EDIT for Clarification: Next already has the thing where classes grant bonuses to their key stats. They just need to implement the no-stacking caveat. That one little simple change will transform Next from being a game where classes are very shoehorned into certain racial choices (worse than 1e-3e, possibly) to a game where racial/class combos are really very open (moreso than any past edition of D&D).

Figgin of Chaos
2013-04-05, 02:34 AM
Alternatively -- and I actually think this change would be a great idea for Next -- have classes grant bonuses to their key stats, and don't let those bonuses stack with racial bonuses.

So something like a Half-Orc Rogue is perfectly playable, because he can get Dexterity +2 just as easily as the Halfling Rogue can. (He gets it from his class; the Halfling gets it from race.) Racial selection becomes more a game of what kind of Rogue (or Wizard, or Cleric) you want to be playing. (A strong Rogue? An agile Wizard? A tough Wizard? An intelligent Paladin? ...)

EDIT for Clarification: Next already has the thing where classes grant bonuses to their key stats. They just need to implement the no-stacking caveat. That one little simple change will transform Next from being a game where classes are very shoehorned into certain racial choices (worse than 1e-3e, possibly) to a game where racial/class combos are really very open (moreso than any past edition of D&D).

The way you describe that, though, a Half-Orc Barbarian would be an unoptimized combination: If they each grant a bonus to Strength, and the bonuses don't stack, one of them is going to waste. "Pfft, why are you playing a Half-Orc Barbarian? You'd be better off as an Elf Barbarian."

It could work if races had other benefits that synergize with same-stat classes, or could select another stat boost to compensate.

Ashtagon
2013-04-05, 03:13 AM
Stats: Keep the big six. I see the case for reducing them to their constituent modifiers, but a) that completely removes the framework around which rolling for stats rests, and b) feat prerequisites are still based around odd numbers.

Dexterity currently refers to both body agility-balance, and to hand-eye coordination and fine detail fingerwork. However, separating these out will result in one being dump and the other a god-stat, so best to keep them merged. Similarly, Wisdom currently refers to both perception of the physical world, and to divine adeptness; the second half of Wisdom can be rephrased as perception of the supernatural world. This subtle change in flavour refluffs the justification for clerics and Will saves. Again, separating these into two stats will cause issues. The Charisma v Wisdom contrast aspect of the supernatural is perceiving the supernatural vs. controlling the supernatural.

2e had the various Skills & POwers books, which did separate the stats (into 12 total), and was a power gamer's wet dream. Never again.

Spells: A complete overhaul is needed. Save or dies, and no save, just die spells should be removed. Care should also be taken that spells don't become intrinsically more powerful with new splatbooks (polymorph, I'm looking at you). Spells that render other classes obsolete should be toned down (eg. knock could grant the touched person a bonus on their next pick lock check, and also enables to do that as a single touch and unlock bolts etc that are normally physically unreachable).

Christmas Tree/Bonus Stacking: This needs to be brought under control. As part of it, magic items (and spells) will generally NOT give static bonuses or penalties; they DO things, not MODIFY things. It should not be necessary to have an array of plus items to be competitive at high levels.

Tier 1: All wizards are specialists. All clerics follow a deity (or an idealogical analogue). Generally, half or more of the current total spell list would be barred for any full caster.

Magic System: The default magic system would be mana based, but alternates should be presented as optional rules.

Paladins: "Paladin" is inhernetly a construct of a specific society. Since it was meant to be a holy warrior, let's call them what they are with a more generic name: templars. At the same time, we can drop the overtly martial aspect of clerics, rename them priests maybe, and make them "the shield" to the templar's "sword" in matters of game world religion.

Melee: Make ToB the default system for powered up martial types. Feats just don't cut it, and fixed class features are too tight a straightjacket. This allows "swashbuckler" to be a martial lore, rather than a class.

Death and Dying: Hit points are a hero shield. After that, vitality points (negative hp renamed) represent actual serious injury. Any time you lose vitality points, you run the risk of a critical hit (semi-permanent major injury). This replaces simply dropping unconscious (although that remains a voluntary option), allowing continued player agency to the end. NPCs and monsters can continue to drop at 0 hp, as normal.

Iterative Attacks: This is a relic from OD&D, to emulate how heroes could spam attacks against 1st level warriors. That concept-space is covered by the Cleave feat chain anyway. Extra attacks with a weapon will be a feature gained from a combo of martial manoeuvres and specific weapons, and limited by martial manoeuvre refresh mechanics.

Alignment: This should be reduced to fluff only. Any alignment-based game mechanics should be a feature derived from divine aura (for clerics and templars) and intrinsically magical auras.

Social Combat: I'd like to see something more detailed that a single Diplomacy skill roll winning the day.

Combat Grid: Drop this, if possible. Can we allow for more freeform combat?

Action Points: A good idea. Integrate this into everything. Feats should grant options that can be exploited by spending action points (in addition to their base effect). Charisma bonus can be used as a modifier on your action point capacity (because the charismatic guy is the star in the movies). A mechanic should be in place to restore these aside from "when you level up".

RedWarlock
2013-04-05, 04:12 AM
Paladins: "Paladin" is inhernetly a construct of a specific society. Since it was meant to be a holy warrior, let's call them what they are with a more generic name: templars. At the same time, we can drop the overtly martial aspect of clerics, rename them priests maybe, and make them "the shield" to the templar's "sword" in matters of game world religion.


Templar is actually more of a specialized, culture-specific term than paladin. Specifically referring to the Templar Knights.

Both of bthe following are from Dictionary.com:

Tem·plar [tem-pler]
noun
1. a member of a religious military order founded by Crusaders in Jerusalem about 1118, and suppressed in 1312.
2. a barrister or other person occupying chambers in the Temple, London.
3. a member of the Masonic order, Knights Templars.


pal·a·din [pal-uh-din]
noun
1. any one of the 12 legendary peers or knightly champions in attendance on Charlemagne.
2. any knightly or heroic champion.
3. any determined advocate or defender of a noble cause.

2 out of 3 of the Paladin definitions are generic. None of the 3 Templar definitions are generic, all refer to specific groups.

This doesn't change anything for the better. Just saying. (No offense intended, you might have a different head-canon for the term, but it isn't publicly supported.)

Figgin of Chaos
2013-04-05, 04:24 AM
Starcraft and Dragon Age have used Templar enough that I think of them as "religious/spiritual warriors." It implies healing and smiting undead a little less than "Paladin" does. Maybe that's just me though.

Ashtagon
2013-04-05, 04:36 AM
You're right. So neither paladin nor templar are baggage-free. I know Warhammer and Diablo have co-opted templar to mean a generic warrior dedicated to a specific campaign-setting deity. In my headspace, I had imagined that to be a more general meaning of the term. Apparently not.

("Templar" is listed as being someone from one of those specific groups. "templar" (lower case) is a generic adjective meaning "associated with a temple". But yeah.)

My key point was to create a paradigm shift from seeing paladins as alignment-focused to seeing them as deity-focused, just as clerics are.

Razanir
2013-04-05, 08:38 AM
Now = 3.5e/PF

Ability Scores: I see no reason to change it from the six we have now.

Skills: Have two relevant abilities. Only the higher bonus counts

Skill Points: Pathfinder

Alignment: Have a numerical system. The players say what their characters think they are, then the DM adjusts them as the game goes on. Telling them if they change is optional :smallamused: "What do you mean Detect Evil pinged? We're all good!"

Classes: Have a generic class with premades. That way you can have a more reasonable version of 4e. I like where they were going with everyone gets similar abilities at each level, but I think they took it too far.

Racial Ability Modifiers: I second this idea of races and classes both provide bonuses. Misunderstood orc wizard, here I come!

HP: For PC level classes, roll 1d3+3 instead of 1d6 and similar

Magic: Psionic mechanics. NOT UA spell points. If you go with psionics, you have to rebuild the spell list to actually utilize it, augmenting and all.

Þe olde fightere qvestione: Give them something more useful than feats. Make them a mundane bard or something. Let them buff their allies as a commander

Þe olde ande verie similare paladine qvestione: Make two cleric-y classes. A combat oriented one and a casting oriented one. Ta da!

Tier One: Bye! Don't let the door hit ya'! Wizards pick a school of magic. They behave similarly to psions. Clerics get most of their spells from their domains. Druids... Refluffed to be shapeshifters (like the laguz)

Black Jester
2013-04-05, 10:31 AM
Abilities
I would indeed split Dexterity in two abilities (namely manual Dexterity and Agility) and would do the same with Wisdom (split into Perception and Willpower), then introduce a 9th Ability in form of Magic, which covers well most supernatural activities.
For lack of a better option I think continuing the current form of ability bonuses is okay, but I would clearly limit ability scores to a set maximum (let's say 20 + Racial Modifiers).
Abilities will also have a very defined role within the game; fighting will always be linked to Strength and Agility, spellcasting to Magic, Willpower and Intelligence and so on. These abilities should define a character and thus not be interchangeable in their function.
I am also not sure if increasing ability scores is actually desirable, and if so, it should actually be more based on random chance instead of detailed optimization. I like the idea of Hackmaster to include a percentile score for each ability which could then slowly increase with each level, and when it reaches 100, the main stat increases and the percentile track is reseted. The percentile track increases by a various dice size depending on your class.

Races
I would like racial modifiers and influences to be much more important than they are currently, making characters from different races play much more different than they do now. One reasonable step in this direction would to introduce new racial abilities when a character rises in level, and make many race-specific talents and specializations. Races should be build on the idea what is logical and how the fluff is implemented best, with balancing as a secondary or tertiary reminder at best.
Some variations of this - like the backgrounds of 4e - would also be welcome and allow for more individualization of characters.

Classes
I would continue the concept of using classes and levels, but only use very few classes: warriors, scouts, thieves, healers and scholars, and then use specializations, kits or templates to diversify these core classes and allow for various subtypes. None of the core classes uses magic by default, but all can learn it to a certain degree (whereby warriors have the most limited and scholars the most varied list of opportunities to do so).
Again, similar to races the futile attempt to balance these classes is not nearly as important (or likely to actually work) than to make sure that each class plays differently and makes fun to play. Warriors will be superior in combat and most physical challenges, scouts are good at stealth, gathering information and wilderness survival, thieves can be both fast-talking manipulators and use various forms of trickery and stealth, healers offer support and heal, and scholars offer insight and exposition (and yes, this is a hierarchy of "power" of sorts).
When it comes to levels, I think one possible alternative to the standard 20 level model would be to make much more levels but let each one count a lot less. If there were for instance 99 levels and level 99 would be the equivalent of what is level 20 now, you could make level raises more frequently as a reward mechanism, even though the impact of each new level would be lower.

Skills and Feats
Skills and Feats can be very easily combined into one category, like talents or proficiencies. This would make the game a bit more streamlined. Going with the idea of lots or minor levels, I would go with a talent per level but make each one relatively minor. Then, you could use other prerequisites, using talents as replacement for various skills, while traditional skill checks could be covered by ability checks (plus bonuses for class, specialization, race and/or talents).
The same system could also be used for spells or magic activities, making learning a spell the equivalent of gaining a new feat. This way, spells could use various prerequisites (before you can learn to cast a fireball, you must first learn how to ignite a torch, make minor fires and then make larger ones).

Magic and Spells
I would continue to use the Vancian casting system. It isn't perfect (it's not even very good), but it is in many ways iconic. However, I would remove the difference between arcane and divine magic, and go with much more detailed packages of magic, similarly to the different spheres of divine magic in 2nd edition AD&D - it really doesn't matter if a caster knows fire spells because he has learned it at the academy, or because he worships the god of the furnace. The conjured fire will burn the same way and one unified set of rules is simpler and more straightforward.
I would also make sure that characters can learn only a very limited number of these spheres and many are mutually exclusive - if you learn Fire magic, you cannot learn water magic and so on. the more powerful a form of magic is, the more exclusive could it be as well. In combination with the prerequisite system, pretty much all spellcasters should have a specific theme and feel to them without the need for one specialist class for each specific school.
Additionally, I would greatly limit the overall power of spells, making sure that any form of magic is certainly nice, but never obligatory. The system should run smoothly without any one playing a caster (or heavy addiction to magical items), allowing for a flexible regulation of the degree of 'magical-ness' of the campaign.


Combat & Damage
First of all: Completing passive defense (like AC) with an active defense roll is obligatory., meaning that AC or its equivalent is rather low, but characters have the opportunity to actively block, dodge or parry incoming attacks. You could do the same with saving throws. I would also increase defense and defensive mechanisms instead of Hitpoints, which can be fairly static. Likewise, penalties for injuries are obligatory.
You only need three types of actions - free ones, simple ones and complex ones. Everyone has one of each type, and can trade down if needed. Casting spells will be slow (as in: several turns per spell) but reliable, or quick and prone to failure (including the possibility of magical botches which have the opposite effect of what was originally intended or something similar).
Warriors (and only warriors) will receive iterative attacks as the ability to attack with simple actions instead of complex ones (like everybody else) and eventually even free ones, which could be used to attack several times per turn or combine this with other tactical options.
There should be many options and tactics available, both specific ones as well as general ones.

Draz74
2013-04-05, 12:44 PM
The way you describe that, though, a Half-Orc Barbarian would be an unoptimized combination: If they each grant a bonus to Strength, and the bonuses don't stack, one of them is going to waste. "Pfft, why are you playing a Half-Orc Barbarian? You'd be better off as an Elf Barbarian."

It could work if races had other benefits that synergize with same-stat classes, or could select another stat boost to compensate.

Well, in the current Next playtest packet, each class has at least two options for which key stat it gets a boost to, so that's what I had in mind. So our hypothetical Orc Barbarian could gain a Strength boost from Orc and a Constitution boost from Barbarian. Meanwhile, a Wood Elf Barbarian could get a Dexterity boost from Elf and a Strength boost from Barbarian.

Man on Fire
2013-04-05, 02:51 PM
Some additions from me:

Get rid of alignment system. Or at least limit it to cosmology like planes, blood war, Planescape lore or gods, but no more "Orcs are always chaotic evil". In fact, no alignment for common folks - you are your own man and you choose yourself where you fall in.

Also, stolen balantly from Earthdawn - from now on class levels are actual part of the fluff - they decribe level of respect you earned among others of your choosen profession, when you want go level up, you need to find a master of higher level than yours and and prove to him you are worthy of raising your rank among your peers, so new secrets can be revealed to you.

Example: Fighter earned enough XP to be ready and go up to level 10. In order to do so he searches for another Fighter of higher level, to be his master. Master decides he needs some evidence and puts him to a test so he gives him some of his men and order to command this fighting team into a simple mission. Once fighter succeds, master leads ceremny of his advancement and then teaches him new knowledge, unlocking new class features.

ericgrau
2013-04-05, 09:08 PM
I'd make everything a lot simpler. Sure ability modifiers instead of ability scores is one thing, but there are 1,000 others.

I probably wouldn't take away a lot of things that people want to take away though because while they may cause trouble they are also what make 3.5 varied and fun. Purely numerical things like +X magic items OTOH... ya those could easily be ditched folded into leveling. Numbers tend to be boring, and for that matter confusing to the less mathematically inclined. As much as I've done with numbers, it's a pain explaining it to others and I'd rather they'd simply be either free or non-existent, not an option that you must select.

So on the whole I'd try to make things less confusing without taking anything cool away.