D&D 6E comes out, and it's an all new system.
What sorts of mechanics would you be happy to see dropped?
What sorts of changes would make this Not Dungeons And Dragons Anymore?
Common cross-version D&D stuff to get you started:
> d20+mods vs Target for attacks (possibly for everything)
> Ability scores
> Race / class / level
> Vancian casting
>>46237112
> Ability scores
D&D without ability scores would result in autists burning down the WotC headquarters.
>>46237339
But that's the one they most need to nuke.
Change the alignment system a lot. I don't want it gone because alignment is very real and very important to the cosmology in D&D, but it seriously needs an update.
I would suggest something like a series of polar beliefs similar to that Camelot system, the name of which is escaping me at the moment (if its actually Camelot I'm gonna kill myself), but with numbers where one end is, say, -5 and the other is 5 with 0 in the middle and these numbers pull you to lawful/chaotic and good/evil. That way your characterization is more individualized and playing to your alignment isn't so nebulous while still being so necessary.
>>46237112
If I got my way, I'd burn down
>Classes
>Levels
>Ability scores
>Alignment
>Playable non-humanoids
And drastically revamp every single humanoid race. Then I would laugh as D&D burned and fuck off to play an actual system.
>>46237112
>> Ability scores
>> Race / class / level
>> Vancian casting
I can look past these, and I could probably do without vance, but...
>> d20+mods vs Target for attacks (possibly for everything)
SERIOUSLY? the CORE MECHANIC? for EVERY SINGLE EDITION. WAT
>>46237856
5e already did the best thing you can do with the classic alignment axis: bring it up, describe it, and then base close to zero game mechanics on it.
>>46237856
My best take on D&D alignment is that it's a fucked up D&D cosmology thing that has a passing resemblance to morality, but it's not actually morality.
Murdering Good creatures is an Evil act, murdering Evil creatures is a Good act. So that's just Red Team vs Blue Team. So is trying to convert people to your alignment. Some things aren't symmetric - torturing anyone is Evil, charitable actions towards Good people is Good. (Charitable actions towards Evil people is neutral, otherwise Evil societies fall apart.)
So both Good and Evil people can be amoral fucks or genuinely nice people by real-world standards, though team Evil is actually a little less pleasant on average.
Then Law and Chaos is just like... Adderall vs LSD as opposed cosmic forces. One of these sides is better at organization and the other is better at art, but we're not talking about deep philosophical stances here.
>>46238028
That's the wrong approach when alignment is still such a real and tangible thing in D&D. You can't make it more nebulous, you need to make it easier to define and individualize.
>get rid of Vancian casting and spells per day bullshit, make spellpoints the official system
>Remove unneeded classes like Druid, Barbarian, Bard, Wizard, Monk, ect. Classes should be general.
>Armor as +Armor Class. DR a better.
>Unneeded races like Dragonborn, Tieflings, Aasimar, Genasi; give all characters the option to use their level one feat to have a feat like "Draconic Heritage" or "Elemental Heritage". You know what I mean? Hell, you could make a whole sub-race system like that
>Expanded feat system and much more frequent progression than 5e to help differentiate characters. Remember "Polearm Master"? Imagine if every weapon category had a "X Master" feat. And a "X Basics" and "X Supremacy".
>Better weapons system, actual differences and variety, further differentiated by the prior feats
>Make NPC creation an exp based "Build-your-own". That way you don't need to wing it with guessing what CR something should be and you don't need to rely on the Monster Manual.
>Make everyone viable outside of their main role and excellent at their main role.
>Better rules for using skills in combat, make maneuvers like tripping and grappling actually viable and fun
>Trick system to put modifiers on attacks (eg. Power Attack or Called Shot)
>Better proficiency system, no more "Hurr I am good at pear but how do trident". Split it by weapon type and let the player choose what types to take.
>>46238262
Eh...
I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater with some of this.
Having the really specific fantasy tropes wrapped up into neat little character class packages with a bow on top is nice. Especially since D&D has grown its own specific weird tropes (that then escaped into the wild) like combat bards.
I do think focusing on making skills useful in combat is a particularly useful idea for a D&D-ish system though. Because if you're D&D you have to have a skill list and you have to have combat.
>Bring back the Tome of Battle stuff and make it core.
>Replace "master of all trades" casters with more specialized ones like Dread Necromancer and Beguiler.
>Enforce a strict "no shovelware" policy - if a feat, class, etc. is something no reasonable player would take, don't fucking publish it.
This is all it would take to fix 3e, there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
d20 is too swingy, I'd swap it for 3d6.
>>46238983
2d10
>>46238262
I see what you did...
>>46239028
Binomial!
>>46238885
He described Fantasy Craft, anon.
>>46238262
make spellpoints as defined by arbitrary vaguely defined "scenes" with constant asking the GM "is this a new scene yet? can I do a thing?" the official system*
>>46237881
How would you handle progression?
>>46238983
I have tried this-. The problem with normalizing distributions like that is that you lose all of ot variety
>>46241700
Isn't that the point?
>>46241740
The drop is really noticable, low rolls and high rolls happen much less often. because of this, you have to scale all the contesting values to small ranges, and this destroys variation in monster statistics.
Vancian dropped, or reinvigorated. Powers for casters that function more similar to weapons, like Last-Airbender-type-things.
Additionally combat maneuvers that function like spells for martial characters.
Oh! And ranged weapons with sensible power levels. I want to not feel bad for wanting to use a slinger, or any other kind of skirmisher weapon. Or even crossbows, which should be able to pull their weight, but in almost every DnD game, can't.
Back when races used to have favored classes, and I was an edgy teenager, I imagined a Vampire race would have druid as it's favored class. Think that fits?
>>46237112
First, you have to take out the shit.
>Remove all player classes
>Remove all player races
>Remove vancian spell casting
Then have to change the core mechanics
>Make it a d6 pool normalized system, but not stupid bad rules or too many rolls like most other have, d6 pool for attacks, d6 pool for spells d6 fucking normal people dice rape that shit everything. Revamp abilities/statistics/attributes to enforce this
And then comes the soft breeze, the pleasant smell, and warm caress of CYOA in character creation:
>Be good/bad at whatever the fuck you want.
>Point-based statistics/attributes/abilities, players spend points to purchase skills etc, and everyone has the same amount of points + random d6 stuff
Look and be whoever the fuck you want
>Just describe your fucking race, name it, make it up, do it well you piece of shit or the DM will cuck you into oblivion
>Have flaws/buffs systems in races available for further racejerking
And finally, jesus fucking christ, bring back some realism in armor and weapons, or abstract it to hell without stupid hurr durr AC and not DR and material based.
>>46241762
Yeah, if you just straight 3d6 it all the existing probabilities are fucked. You can't simply change from d20 to 3d6 in DnD.
Honestly, the whole "d20 is bad" thing needs to be very thought over - really the entire point of dice is to put probabilities on things. Say you want an average task that has a 50/50 of happening, and you have "success" defined as rolling equal to or greater than. On a d20 your DC is now 11, on a 3d6 it's also 11.
But say you want a hard task to be 25% chance of success? On a d20 that's just a DC 16. 3d6? About a 13 (25.93%. I'm using anydice)
What's the real difference here? 3d6s are much more sensitive to modifiers, and makes getting situational modifiers (+1 for high ground or whatever) a big deal.
A lot of people hate on d20 for swinginess (and I still have the same reaction to it) but probabilities are still just probabilities, whether it's masked behind a 3d6 or a d20.
I honestly think the best thing that could happen would be for there to not actually be a 6E. Those who know nothing of this genre of entertainment will still know the name "D&D" so it gets a ridiculous amount of undeserved attention. It would be better for the industry if it up and died so those wanting to get into tabletops actually had to do the tiniest amount of research to find a game that appeals to them rather than blowing cash on the game with the most brand awareness.
Of course, that isn't likely to happen so the change I would like to see is the system to get really stripped down and simplified. I don't know what changes would be needed for that, but since it is by and large an entrypoint game I think it needs to embrace that fact and become much more rules-light and retard proof.
>>46241990
Exactly my thoughts. I have looked into this quite a lot when masturbating to my own unfinished games that will never see the light of day outside my cave.
The thing is, I think it's fair to say it's bad that you have an equal chance of rolling a 1 as you do a 20, as you do a 10, but they don't realize how simple it is to set contesting values because the distribution is constant. The variance is a problem, but +1/-1 etc sensitivity is easily "fixed" with adding/taking away d6s in your roll. The biggest problem is setting the contesting the values without making every monster have the same statistics.
>>46237856
But then you have the problems idiots have with the system turn in to problems everybody has
>>46242043
you see this shit in both types though. There's a lot of dead values in the d20 system, because they couldn't figure out how to make it work decently. At the same time, you will have many dead and highly unlikely values in the d6 system.
>>46237112
Get rid of iron rations
Secret doors check is made on d%
Goblins are bigger than hobgoblins
Gelatinous dodecahedron
>>46242008
My happiest moment was realizing the bad moments weren't just because of us as players, but because the game itself was built towards certain things, and that other games had other aspects of role play in mind. That said I'm namedropping Burning Wheel.
Knowing this and that other systems exist I'm not sure what I want out of DnD. Its not a particular high fantasy setting, although as a rule of thumb it seems to almost ways be combat centric - but that might be a result of bad modules, or bad GMs, or bad players, but it seems like a stretch for me to say all my GMs and players have been bad, and not other resources, like the game at a deep level.
>I don't know what changes would be needed for that, but since it is by and large an entrypoint game I think it needs to embrace that fact and become much more rules-light and retard proof.
When I think of DnD, I see a combat simulator. Except its long, much too long. And you're right, complicated. There has to be some way of making it fast and elegant but still nuanced enough to enjoy. But maybe its level of complication is because of the expansion books they keep shitting out for more money.
>>46237112
>Remove levels
Seriously, when did people just blindly accept this meme? Getting good at something discretely. Suddenly knowing how to cast spells because you killed one more gobbo.
>i killed all the gobbo DM sir
>Well done bobbo
>I now know this fightan weaabo stance
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>46242114
I hate classes and levels too, but honestly I don't know if DnD should switch off of them; it's basically part of its identity at this point.
And some people do just want that shit. It is pretty straightforward and easy.Not that not having them is complicated.
Nice meme arrows by the way.
>>46237112
Look at the 2 greatest mistakes 4e was not auctualy d&d however it still had the potential to be fun in the right group just don't do that shit with making everything about powers again and you have learnt most of what you need from 4e
Now the mistakes of 5e most of these alone were enough to ruin the edition let alone together
>advantage
>limited magic items
>bounded accuracy
>turning clerics into favoured souls
Honestly at this point I have forgotten most of what I hate about 5e I remember most of my other problems were many people's favourite parts.
Ultimantly I have to say give me 3e but with a skill system where you get points that can be spent in certain areas to avoid shafting fighters so much and giving wizards so much advantage.
Also don't even feature roled stats in the book and if you must for fucks sake make it clear it's not the main way.
>>46237339
Problem is I'm pretty sure wizards are on the bottom 2 floors of that building what about those upstairs.
>>46242114
Something something skinner box?
Its not supposed to make sense, I think its there to keep us playing somehow.
Not that I like it either.
fightan weaabo stance made me think of Naruto somehow. Those kid ninjas were inherently strong when they were young, like optimized characters.
Those fights are cool, mostly they're learning exactly what and how their enemies work during the fight. Maybe it'd make more sense for knowledge checks to come later, or a way to learn what something does outside metagaming. Or when they become more powerful somehow while they're fighting.
It didn't sit well with me how many gobbos I genocided. Sure their warriors raided some trade caravans. But I kinda just strolled into their homes and murdered their families.
>>46242209
>Or when they become more powerful somehow while they're fighting.
That was a disjointed thought. It was supposed to be about leveling up. Their level ups are different in weabo land. Might be cool to emulate how that works since I can't imagine DnD not just being about fighting anyways. The way leveling works now, its impractical for that kind of thing.
>>46237112
To-hit rolls are replaced with initiative rolls. Instead of hitting for example three times on your turn, you roll 1d20+attack bonus, and the result is when your attack takes place on the initiative order.
Hits are guaranteed unless the enemy has miss chance.
>>46242161
It could probably change to be more modular, make-it-yourself since character customization or optimization seems to be a pretty big part of it all. Pathfinder's subclasses or archetypes or whatever are a step in the right direction, but they could still be more modular, more customizable.
>>46242235
So where does armor or protection come into this?
>>46242266
Damage reduction or extra hitpoints.
>>46242266
>armor in a world of magic
please this meme
>just because there is magic doesn't mean everything is magic
please this rationalization
>>46237112
Make it an Apocalypse World game.
Crash and burn.
>>46242280
I like this. The most common action in DnD is compounded. A roll is made, the attacker moves on, while the defender does calculations for damage received.
The only problem I have is that 1d20 has a huge variance. I'd tweak it to use smaller dice. But that feels wrong somehow.
>>46242290
Haha.
>>46242245
Have you seen Shadow of the Demon Lord? It sort of has a modular setup going, with tons of different paths, and you you slap them onto your level progression. Heavily inspired by 5e, too.
It's a 10-level system (or, well, 11, since there's a level 0 that is nothing if you're into an origin-story/funnel setup)
At level 1 you pick a novice path. It gives benefits at levels 1, 2, 5, and 8. This is generic shit. Classes are Magician/fighter/priest/rogue.
At level 3 you pick an expert path. It gives benefits at levels 3, 6, 9. These are more specialized paths. Core has 16 of them.
At level 7, you pick a master path. it gives benefits at levels 7 and 10. You can instead choose a 2nd expert path, but you only get 2 of its benefits. Masters are super-specialized paths, and core has 64 of em.
Level 4 you have a benefit gain from your ancestry (race). Generally it's some special feat or a spellchoice.
None of the paths have requirements to enter them. You can pick Magician as your base and then Warrior for expert and Chaplain for master, if you want, or you can go full staff wizard and then do Magician (Novice)/Wizard (Expert)/Magus (Master).
>>46237112
Just do errata on the Rules Cyclopedia and fix the Thief class tobacco fampire.
Personally I'd keep the race/class/level system but make classes more defined. Basically each class has its niche in the game. I'd probably go more the route of 4e since it was the closest we came to game balance.
>>46242378
The no requirements thing sounds good. I've wrestled with the idea of experienced but not necessarily intelligent wizards in DnD, but the Wizard kit seems incapable of working outside the bounds it was meant to. I hope its flexible in the way I want a game to be flexible. I haven't heard about it, but I guess now I have to look into it.
>>46242064
What do you mean by dead value? Should each individual face of a die produce a different result when you roll?
Like when you roll a d20+5 vs 10, the difference between rolling an 8 and a 9 isn't meaningful?
To avoid this, you'd have to make specific effects to each under/over-roll (eg 1 over, 2 over, 3 under). Like, degrees of success/failure.
If you're going to do that, a d6 is probably the best just so you don't need to think of 80 different effects. But then you can't have shit for modifiers, so if you're really into modifiers it limits them.
>>46242470
"More defined" can translate to "more specialized", which can be annoying and limiting, but, yeah.
4e could be improved on but it definitely did a lot well enough.
>>46242477
I got a lot of it in here: https://mega.nz/#F!axkmmbKT!NKiex_659PAGOlaKBbukFA
>>46242495
Dead values either not exist, such as trying to roll 1 or 2 with 3d6, or simply have no mechanical effect, like the difference between 14 and 13 strength.
>Pare down the races and classes, we don't need so many. (Make "as PC" rules for some monsters instead, and include things like Tieflings and Dragonborn there)
>In addition, keep spellcasting to spellcasters only. Fighters are still viable even if they can't use any magic for fucks sakes
>Nerf spellcasters and especially cantrips
>Remove Advantage/disadvantage
>Keep encumbrance rules, but find a way to streamline them and make them not a pain in the ass (SWN did it well)
>Remove alignment
Did I forget anything?
>>46242552
yeah, the part where you improve the game.
>>46239055
I didn't get it...
>>46242495
What the fucking treasure trove.
>>46242569
If you still don't, it's FantasyCraft. He defined FantasyCraft. It's another d20-based game. It's also in the mega posted @ >>46242495
Keep levels. That's a defining feature.
Keep the d20+mods vs target number. That's a defining feature.
keep the classes. That's a defining feature.
Change some of the class mechanics so we don't have caster supremacy. Give the caster classes more limited options and expand what Martials can do out of combat.
Give penalties and mutations to casters if they cast solely on themselves to try and mecha Mage their way through every encounter.
Slash the spell list but keep vancian casting system. It's no more difficult to learn than a point based spell system (if you can't take 2 seconds to clarify the one mistake everyone makes when reading it for the first time you're not fit to GM).
Keep the advantage system from 5e and drop the 4e encounter/daily/at-will power system.
Also keep in mind if you change the system so drastically that it's un-recognizable as D&D will probably cut into the sales.
>>46242354
How about instead of rolling attack, you roll AC once per turn? It makes sense that if you're caught "off-guard" you'll get hammered, and all attacks "take 10"
>>46242624
Then what's the fuckin point of AC if a single roll gets you ompaled through the breastplate with ten sticks by ten toddlers.
>>46237112
Tome of Battle is a baseline for all Martial Classes. Warblade is now the baseline fighter, Crusader is baseline Paladin (plus smite and other features), 5E already has a pretty fucking good barbarian but it also gets access to Manuevers and Stances, as does Monk and Ranger.
Caster classes stay as they are. There's nothing you can REALLY do to lower their power level, aside from running a Mana Point system that forces them to prioritize their casting for the day/encounters, rather than just have a spell list a mile long of random spells to fit each encounter.
>>46242616
>2 seconds to clarify the one mistake everyone makes when reading it for the first time you're not fit to GM
What mistake is that?
There's also more to vancian vs spell-point than "confusing."
Spell point is more versatile and only tracks 1 number rather than several. That combined with "1/day max of 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th level" and it still remains pretty balanced.
Admittedly it's several easy, low numbers, but it's still several.
>>46242664
Point based system gives casters even more flexibility in their already extremely flexible list of options.
>>46242664
>What mistake is that?
That the bonus spell slots from high casting stat means you can cast a fourth level spell at level 1.
>>46237112
3e-style classes, but less class padding.
I've made seven 3e classes for player use, all of them base classes, and none of them have 20 levels. Why? Because stretching out a single concept to a full 20 levels is an exercise in frustration. I would rather have a wide array of 3/5/10 level classes that start with a single concept/ability and build on it.
>>46242656
I think forcing caster to specialize in addition to cutting the number of powers and spells they have would be a good way to change them. They might be weaker and less flexible, but they should be able to function to their specialization.
All "wizards" blend together in that they have an insane range of things they're all capable of. They should be more like martials in that they acquire powers slowly and can use them frequently.
>>46242552
>In addition, keep spellcasting to spellcasters only. Fighters are still viable even if they can't use any magic for fucks sakes
"I walk 5 feet and hit it with my sword a few times."
"Okay dave, awesome. Barry, what does your character do"
"Well first I fly away, then I cast a quickened, split empowered ray of exhaustion on the two trolls. They need to make a dc27 fort save or lose 2d8 dexerity. Afterwards I'll throw out some Quickened Grease spells to stop them moving unless they make a balance check with a DC of 18. I'll then whip out my scroll of Mass Teleport and teleport the 160 goblins swarming out of that cave to another plane of existence, before finally casting Testors Floating Disk and putting my staff on it because I'm a bit tired"
"okay barry awesome. Jen, what do you do?"
"I shoot a troll a few times with my bow. I can't trigger my skirmish and rapid shot OR my full attack without a set of special boots, so I'll forgo my skirmish bonus and shuffle five feet backwards".
Which one of these is viable?
>>46238262
What if there waz some system for assigning qualities to your campaign so that it fits whatever flavour of fantasy you want without homebrew?
Man this would make crafting a fantasy setting easier.
Just reskin M&M 3e slightly, and good to go.
>>46237112
1- hit points = con score plus any class bonuses. Your "stamina" goes up as normal. Stamina is your non lethal damage number and is used to power some abilities.
2- armor now is damage reduction.
3- critical hits automatically go to your hit points.
4- caster abilities are spell point based, and are points per day modified by the attribute.
Wisdom is renamed to intuition or perception, because people seem to fail at understanding what it is.
5- incorporate tome of battle abilities into combat, especially for fighters, etc.
6- as>>46238262 said, a feat to make sub-race stuff is an interesting way to address the heritage, or make creation "race feats".
7- some monsters need both higher and lower level versions, like vampire and vampire spawn, liches and demiliches, etc.
8- an XP based Lego creation for NPCs and monsters (ie., 50 XP for a 1d6 breath weapon, 25XP for flight (basic), 100 XP for ethereal, +25 for +2 proficiency = 200XP monster).
Maybe but not necessary, brainstorms:
>There are now 10 levels, not 20. Leveling is now harder but more significant?
>sneak attacks are insta crit! but only rogues get extra damage to them.
>rework alchemy and craft rules, I have a player who collects pieces of everything.
>>46242825
>>rework alchemy and craft rules, I have a player who collects pieces of everything.
It's better to leave that purely to common sense and DM discretion.
>>46242735
>>46242825
this is more FantasyCraft-based memery, for anybody wondering, although 825 isn't 100% FC.
>>46242861
>DM discretion and common sense
but anon the entire reason we have rules is so we don't need to rely on this.
>>46242721
Like from the Neverwinter Nights PC game? Wizards and Sorcerers had to pick from 2 Preferred Schools of magic and two Banned Schools. You got bonuses to casting Preferred Magic, but couldn't cast Banned Magic whatsoever. I like that idea.
Another way to balance out is to have the Wizard/Caster have to pay gold to actually buy the books/scrolls to learn their spells from. It makes sense in the setting as Wizards LITERALLY learn their spells from memorization. Sorcerers cast from a scroll and know how to replicate it through sheer talent.
My DM is doing something similar. Spells are found in the form of edible crystals which bind the knowledge of a spell to your soul. You have a set amount of MP, equal to a d4+WIS mod per level, that is used to cast spells. TOB maneuvers can be bought from shops or found, and take a week of ingame time (we game each week, so the next week you learn the stance/maneuver) to learn.
>>46237112
All that matters is the Ability Score modifiers. So get rid of the score and keep the modifier.
Vancian magic is quite nice in this edition. But it has already been changed enough so that it effectively mimics a mana point system anyway. It's time to get rid of it and just go with mana points instead. Rebalance magic to compensate.
Favored Terrain is a dumb mechanic. Would you rather be effective all the time, or only when the DM wills it? Make Rangers worth playing.
Warlocks a shit. Fix em.
Make Rogues as useful as Bards.
Otherwise, I like 5e.
>>46237856
It has already been divorced from the mechanics entirely. They have just been included in 5e for the old grognards that insist on their nostalgia. For the rest of us, alignments are a completely unnecessary hindrance, like Daylight Savings Time.
>>46242869
Too many rules = too many exploits = Major game balance problems and GMs who will outright disallow something because "ids nut in da wools", despite it being logical. Got dozens of steel ingots? By god you should be getting a discount on forging swords.
Remember all the 4e-haters who were all but literally screaming about how if you didn't have a power, it was impossible to do something, how pulling a 2000lbs marble statue on top of someone would do only a tiny amount of damage, and other bullshit like that?
>>46238103
It's there to help guide the players so that they can role play correctly. "Would my character actually do this?"
>>46237112
>D&D 6E comes out, and it's an all new system.
Not my 6E, it isn't. My 6E is actually just 5.5.
I'm more than a little sick of edition updates at this point, and so 5.5 Edition would be fully compatible with 5th Edition and would simply include all errata up to that point plus "fixes" with what the players identified as problems that our own playtesting missed, like beefing up the Ranger and making the Sorcerer more distinct from the Wizard.
>>46242869
Exactly how is con= hp memery, it would legitimately solve the whole "my fighter took 20 damage from a spear, he's fine because he has 120 HP" problem. More dangerous combat would speed things up (a real issue for the DnD system) and giving the players more variety in abilities a la tome of battle would give melee users more variety than "I hit it.... HARDER".
I will admit that would make it more elder scrolls oblivion-esque or even skyrim-esque but given how popular those were and how much fun people had with them I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Particularly with new players.
>>46242910
Well, something like that. Thats still classic DnD. I'm thinking casters should be things like "Pyromancer" or "Elementalist" or "Healer" or "Telepath". Distinct specialized powers. Its so odd to me the distinctions made between divine magic and arcane magic. It should all be the same, at least in form and function.
>>46242919
>Would you rather be effective all the time, or only when the DM wills it? Make Rangers worth playing.
Something like this?: https://dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Prepared_Ranger_%283.5e_Alternate_Class_Feature%29
>>46242963
Nah, I wasn't dismissing it as a bad idea when I said "memery", just tying it to FC.
Vitality/HP is an alright idea, but we both know that vit-bloat at high levels and critfishing as a result of it is a problem in FC.
Although I'm seeing you tie "stamina" directly to non-lethal damage, so maybe it avoids that problem.
>>46242825
>8- an XP based Lego creation for NPCs and monsters (ie., 50 XP for a 1d6 breath weapon, 25XP for flight (basic), 100 XP for ethereal, +25 for +2 proficiency = 200XP monster).
The problem with that is that some combos are significantly more powerful than the sum of their parts.
>>46243013
I actually liked how healing surges worked, but I think a combination of them and the Death's Door mechanic in Darkest Dungeon would also be worth a shot.
Multiple consecutive attacks against someone would realistically be more lethal than the name number of attacks over a period of a day, outside healing notwithstanding.
>>46242963
Dangerous combat isn't something that most players want in D&D, however. We *like* that combat is both abstract and HEROIC rather than realistic.
Your typical D&D player never has an issue understanding that HP is an abstraction, it's only neckbeards who whine about it.
And funnily enough I'd actually like LONGER combat, not shorter combat. That is, while I'd like to be able to mow down mooks faster, most "boss" battles that you see in fantasy movies and TV - say, any Musketeer movie - tend to be long, drawn-out affairs that range over a wide area. Conversely in D&D they tend to be 6 or 7 rounds (less than 1 minute) long at most.
>>46243064
Not who you replied to, but I was twelve when I realized a 100 hp warrior being successfully stabbed with a dagger for 4 damage was stupid.
FantasyCraft already does a really, really good rules-heavy/crunch-heavy OGL game. I'd push DnD 6e down the line 5E seems to be taking it; less rules to keep track of, simpler mechanics, more choice inside your class beyond a spell list.
Keep Advantage.
Keep Ability Scores.
Keep Classes. It's still DnD. Some things aren't sacred cows, but core elements of the gameline.
Push wizards specializing by school further. No one should just call themselves a wizard; being a beguiler should be a vastly different game from a necromancer.
Write gambit-style tactics into the system. Tripping, grappling, disarming, sundering, and more, should all be achievable by 3/4th BAB classes without a single feat invested, unless the enemy is specifically tough to do that against. IE, a skilled swordfighter being harder to disarm, a marilith being impossible to trip, etc. This would give Martials more option round to round before class features come into play.
Keep feats as they are in 5E. A big choice with a swathe of features, but you're choosing between it and a flat ability score increase.
Alternate abilities being more common. Give people more choice when they level up beyond grabbing a prestige class or multiclassing. 5Es system of multiple "Classes" per class was a good start. Push it further.
>>46242235
The problem with this is that right up until the point you land your final blow, it makes no difference.
There's also shit like "wasting" attacks on targets that are already dead. Unless you meant that you can decide what to do when your initiative happens.
Unless all attacks actually are expected to have rider effect, in which case hitting first would be a benefit.
>>46243180
Or being able to change targets when you kill one. In fact, collective hitpoints for the entire enemy side would also be an option, but it kinda fucks up AOE attacks.
>>46241990
How does it compare to using 2d10?
I was thinking about that the other evening. It would allow you to keep crits and critfails (20 and 2, now) as significant things, because instead of happening 5% of the time, they now happen 1% of the time. I'm not sure how the bell-curve that two dice add would affect the actual meat of the system though.
>>46243288
Creates a slightly nicer bell curve. If the game was to go with 3d6, DCs would need to be readjusted across the entire board.
>it's more descriptive
>we cut out as many senseless numbers as we can
>character creation becomes more descriptive, forcing people to roleplay
>the main mechanic would be destiny points that you gain for good roleplaying, usually connected to your character's flaws
>they can be used to shape the plot around your character
Use WFRP 2e instead.
>>46243288
Anything that changes the dice to make a bell curve will make anything that was easy even easier and anything that was hard even harder. I can't say much more than that.
2d10 appears to have no 50% (>= 11 is 55%, >= 12 is 45%)
25% success shifts to a sort of 14.5 (>=14 is 28%, >=15 is 21%)
18 on 3d6 is very low (0.46%) while 20 on 2d10 is still low (1%, as you said).
http://anydice.com/program/7fad
I'm just using this and then setting it to "Data: At Least"
Dice choice is a big thing. Don't arbitrarily change things just to make bell curves (I know, I like bell curves too), and remember in the end it's all about probabilities and how you fiddle with em via bonuses/penalties in the system.
>>46242825
>1- hit points = con score plus any class bonuses. Your "stamina" goes up as normal. Stamina is your non lethal damage number and is used to power some abilities.
>3- critical hits automatically go to your hit points.
That would make people just fucking GIB on an unlucky crit by a big weapon/dude.
>>46243384
This bell curve business is why I decided I liked shadowrun's d6 system. Theres no critical success, but the chance for horrible failure in the form of critical failure goes up the less trained you are in something. For each point in a skill you have, you get an additioal d6. If half or more of your d6 end up being 1s, critical failure.
>>46243118
Again, HP is an abstraction. I've never had an issue with the idea that the 4 "damage" just represents a near miss or slight blow - or alternatively it does represent an actual blow, but a warrior with 100 hit points is more than human by the time he has that many.
Aquaman wouldn't be bothered by a normal knife blow. Why would my 10th-level Fighter?
>>46243435
Fix: HP is lower, but any damage below a certain threshold is "nonlethal", which heals much faster, but is still damage. In the long run, you survive much longer.At this point I'm just mentioning things I've homebrewed or houseruled
>>46237112
WotC is just licensing the D&D brand right now, they're looking for a buyer.
The next edition of D&D will done by it's new owners, it'll come very suddenly I believe.
>>46243029
Touché, perhaps make it like the multi-monsters XP bonus, so having just one special ability is just the XP for the ability, three abilities doubles the XP, Five triples it, etc.
>an Orc with flying would be say 100 XP
An Orc with flying, breath weapon, and ethereal would be (the cost of the special abilities + cost of Hit Dice + cost of proficiency bonus) x2 for having multiple abilities?
>>46243013
What you could also do is have damage soaked by DR go to stamina, that would affect vitality bloat. Reflex/Dex and other saves could shift the damage to stamina too.
Just an example:
Fighter, +3 proficiency, 12 HP, 20 stamina, DR 5
Orc brand Orc: 10 hp, 10 stamina, DR 2
Orc attacks fighter, hits, rolls 1d10 damage for 7 points.
The fighter takes 5 stamina, 2 HP.
The fighter spends 5 stamina to use "power attack", doubling his strength modifier on the damage roll.
Fighter rolls 2d6 +2 normally, now he rolls 2d6 +4
Fighter rolls 9 +4 = 13
Orc soaks 2 damage which goes to stamina, but takes 11 lethal damage which puts him at -1 HP.
>>46243064
Maybe they could add a segment on boss traits, like give them lots of ways to shift damage to stamina OR just give them DR, resistances, or lotsa HP?
I'm ok with bosses having special qualities, that's what legendary traits are for.
>>46243610
Proper "boss" design doesn't involve making it take lots of hits. It involves making attacking it dangerous.
>>46243675
Then give it auras, give it legendary actions like dragons that make approaching it dangerous as shit, give it lair abilities, make it emit poison, or have a fog around it. Plenty of ways to make approaching it dangerous.
6E needs speed factoring built in from the ground up, with each spell and weapon having it's own speed.
>>46243537
>WotC is just licensing the D&D brand right now, they're looking for a buyer.
inb4 paizo buys D&D
>>46243362
Actually, if you were to do some rehashing of the way attack and skill rolls work ([D20 + stat modifier + situational modifier, roll over Target Number], vs [D100 straight, roll under stat + situational modifer]), could you convert things between the systems?
There would be maths involved though. Several of them.
Character A is in standard D&D. He has STR 10 and makes an attack against AC 15. His chances of success are 25%. He is proficient with his weapon, so adds another +2 to his roll, raising his chances of success to 35%.
Character B is in a D&D/WFRP roll-under conversion mess. He has STR 5 and makes an attack. He needs to roll a 5 or less, so he has a 25% chance of success. He is proficient with his weapon, so adds +2 to his STR, leaving him rolling a 7 or under (35% chance).
This doesn't take into account AC for Character B. Turning AC into straight damage reduction would mess with the damage calculation percentages something awful, so instead let's just convert it to a modifier to the attack roll.
Character A is fighting peasants with AC 10. He has STR 10 and Proficiency 2, so he needs to roll an 8 or higher (60% chance of success).
Character B is fighting peasants. He has STR 5 and Proficiency, so he needs to roll a 12 or lower (60% chance). Working backwards, the difference between AC 10 and AC 15 is equal to a +/- 5. So every point of AC the target has above 10 applies a -5 modifier to the attacker's roll.
So we have the following:
D&D:
>Divide all characteristics by 2
>Subtract 10 from all AC values
>Use the new AC values as a direct modifier. AC 5 applies a -5 to the attack roll, etc
>Roll under your modified characteristic to determine sucess
WFRP:
>Divide all numbers by 5
>God knows how to rework that armour system from DR to a to-hit penalty
>>46243416
I actually like that idea
>Play 2e
Problem solved.
>>46237112
Kill the Vancian Magic Sacred Cow.
That is all.
>>46237112
Make combat like turn based JRPG side-view atb system
>you step forward and swing your blade in the air
>the beast 10 feet away takes damage!
>>46238096
>Murdering Good creatures is an Evil act, murdering Evil creatures is a Good act.
Except this would turn Devils and Demons good because of the blood war. This doesn't happen.
>>46241294
>with constant asking the GM
If you have to ask that means either it's not a new scene or the GM is really bad at their job.
*cough cough* Anyone got high-res link to 5e players handbook?
>>46237112
>Vancian casting replaced with MP based casting
>Magic can be used as a replacement for some things, but always has flaws compared to just using the thing itself
>Different types of spells for different classes - Wizards study specific effects, Clerics and Druids channel, Sorcerers weave spontaneous effects, etc
>Magic only goes up to Level 5 spells
>Classes get expanded to be great at one specific niche and decent and a bunch of other things
>AC dropped in favor of Saving Throws (EG attacks are contests between the attacker and Reflex saves)
>Armor gives DR instead of AC
>Each weapon type is a separate skill that must be chosen based on your class
>Going bare fists outside of the Monk class is viable without homebrew/houserules
>Spells and special abilities are now strictly attack roll based instead of DC based
>Ability score/modifiers dropped in favor of just modifiers
>Math changed so that +2 for your primary ability is a great starting point, +5 is jaw droppingly amazing
>Point buy attributes only
>Alignment system replaced with five general questions about how your character acts, thinks, feels, and approaches problems
>Use race patterns from 5e
>Tiers are strictly defined in the book: 1-5 is normal human range, 6-10 is exceptional, 11-20 is outright superhuman, 21-30 is demigod tier
>HP is replaced with Wounds (bad to take any at all, hard to heal even with magic) and Stamina (goes before Wounds, easy to recover)
>>46246134
So there's no point in ever using magic or weapons because you can punch everything to death just as well or better than using any other option? Why not make monk the only available class?
Most of you have really fucking terrible ideas, wow.
>>46246283
Why use magic or hammers or spears when you can sword everything to death just as well or better than using any other option? Why not make Fighter the only available class?
The point is to make punching viable outside the Monk class because not everyone who wants to punch things wants the abilities of the Monk (which, by the way, should not be limited exclusively to punching things - staves, nunchaku, etc should get equal focus, but because the Monk is the only class with remotely decent unarmed damage that's the weapon it's most well known for).
Unarmed fighting, like every other weapon type, should have its own strengths and weaknesses and be viable to everyone who wants to gear towards it, not just Monks.
>>46246134
>Spells only go up to Level 5
On second thought, I'd let them go up to Level 15.
Every ten levels has five Levels of magic unique to it - 1-10 goes from Levels 1 to 5, 11-20 goes from levels 6-10, and 21-30 goes 11-15.
>>46237856
Go back to original DnD, when there was no moral component to the alignments, only whether you were Lawful, Chaotic, or in between. Just take out the good/evil axis entirely.
Or do what Dungeon World does and make you only have one part of the alignment. You can be good or lawful, but lawful good is not a thing. I like how it gives you way more freedom to act in character, while still keeping a core tenet that your character follows.
>>46237112
I'd scrap classes and levels to make it point buy, desu.
At least then XP would have actual fucking meaning rather than being pointless bullshit points where you might as well just tell people when they level up.
>>46246633
Considering all the "perfect body" shit, Monks should be something that can walk up to something that dishes out negative levels, stat damage, flood your body with poison, and make it shit bricks because none of that will do a damn thing.
The only thing that should threaten a monk is something fighting on equal terms; meaning with hand, tooth, and claw.
>>46245329
That's why they partake in torture, corruption of souls, acts of wanton violence, murder of innocents, and other vile acts.
What, you think it was purely for their amusement?
If feats are going to be a bigger part of the game again then remove fucking prereqs.
>>46246381
Which ones?
>>46237112
Drop classes in favour of skill packages (with stat etc prequisites) bought with Training points gained at lvl 1 and at each level up.
>>46248082
Yeah, one of the real shits on the counter with 3.5 was needing to get two shitty filler feats before you could competently do thing.
